Table of Contents
SodaStream International Ltd. is an Israeli-origin consumer goods company — manufacturer of home sparkling water machines, CO₂ cylinders, and flavoured concentrates — wholly acquired by PepsiCo Inc. in December 2018 for approximately USD 3.2 billion. Its BDS-1000 score of 526 (Tier C) is driven almost entirely by a single domain: V-ECON, which records SodaStream’s deep structural integration into the Israeli economy. The company was founded in Israel, has maintained its operational headquarters and primary manufacturing in Israel throughout its history, employs approximately 1,400–1,500 workers at its Lehavim Negev facility, and carries an Israeli-origin brand identity that remains central to its global commercial positioning even under US ownership.12
The dominant historical controversy concerns SodaStream’s former operation of a manufacturing factory at the Mishor Adumim Industrial Zone in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, which ran from the company’s early years until October 2015. That facility was the primary target of the BDS movement’s most prominent corporate campaign, generating the internationally covered Scarlett Johansson/Oxfam controversy of January 2014 and sustained civil society pressure from Who Profits, B’Tselem, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch.34 The factory was closed on 30 October 2015 and production transferred to a purpose-built facility at Lehavim in the Negev. SodaStream was subsequently removed from the UN OHCHR database of businesses with settlement-related activities on the basis that the cited conduct had ceased.5
Across the other three domains, findings are either nil or low-scoring. No public evidence of defence contracting, weapons supply, dual-use product development, or military procurement relationships has been identified in any source class (V-MIL score: 0.05). No verified relationships with Israeli-origin surveillance, cybersecurity, or intelligence-technology vendors have been identified, and SodaStream’s consumer-product digital footprint is low-sensitivity commercial telemetry (V-DIG score: 0.05). The V-POL domain records a modestly elevated finding: CEO Daniel Birnbaum’s sustained “peace factory” / “coexistence” public narrative during 2013–2016, characterised by civil society investigators as humanitarian-washing of the settlement manufacturing operation; PepsiCo’s documented asymmetric response to Ukraine (public statements, operational adjustments) versus silence on Gaza (no comparable public statement); and PepsiCo’s board opposition to Israel-Palestine human rights due diligence shareholder resolutions during 2023–2024 proxy cycles.67
The score is sensitive primarily to the I-ECON band judgment. At the literal Israeli-Nexus Floor ceiling the BRS would reach approximately 588 (still Tier C); at the lower Acquired Identity band boundary it would be approximately 495 (still Tier C). The Tier C designation is robust across plausible scoring ranges. The settlement manufacturing activity, while the defining controversy in the company’s public record, is verifiably discontinued and ten years in the past; the present-tense scoring reflects the structural economic integration of a major Israeli industrial employer and export brand now operating entirely within internationally recognised Israeli territory.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Early 2000s | SodaStream (then Soda-Club) begins manufacturing operations at Mishor Adumim Industrial Zone, occupied West Bank 8 |
| November 2010 | SodaStream International Ltd. lists on NASDAQ (ticker: SODA) 9 |
| 2012–2013 | BDS movement launches sustained public campaign against SodaStream, citing West Bank settlement manufacturing 10 |
| January 2014 | Scarlett Johansson named SodaStream brand ambassador; Oxfam publicly distances itself from Johansson citing settlement operations; Johansson resigns as Oxfam ambassador 1112 |
| October 2014 | SodaStream announces intention to close Mishor Adumim factory and relocate to the Negev 13 |
| September–October 2015 | Mishor Adumim factory formally closed; production transferred to new Lehavim (Idan HaNegev) facility; Israeli PM Netanyahu attends Lehavim inauguration 1415 |
| November 2015 | EU issues labelling guidelines requiring settlement-origin goods to be marked as such, applicable to SodaStream products during the operational period 16 |
| February 2020 | UN OHCHR publishes HRC-mandated database of businesses with settlement-related activities; SodaStream’s Mishor Adumim presence noted in historical context; company subsequently removed on cessation grounds 5 |
| August 2018 | PepsiCo announces acquisition of SodaStream for approximately USD 3.2 billion 1 |
| December 2018 | PepsiCo acquisition closes; SodaStream ceases independent public disclosures 17 |
| October 2023 | Hamas attacks on Israel; Israeli military operation in Gaza begins; no SodaStream or PepsiCo statement specifically addressing the conflict identified 18 |
| February 2022 | PepsiCo issues public statement on Russia/Ukraine, suspending capital investment in Russia — a documented asymmetric geopolitical response relative to Gaza 18 |
| 19 July 2024 | ICJ Advisory Opinion finds Israel’s presence in the OPT unlawful; no SodaStream or PepsiCo operational response identified 19 |
| 21 November 2024 | ICC Pre-Trial Chamber issues arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant; no SodaStream or PepsiCo statement identified 20 |
SodaStream traces its commercial origins to Soda-Club Ltd., an Israeli company that developed and marketed home carbonation technology. The modern SodaStream brand was built on that Israeli foundation, with Daniel Birnbaum taking over as CEO circa 2007 and steering the company through a NASDAQ IPO in November 2010.9 Throughout its independent existence, SodaStream’s operational heart remained in Israel: its corporate headquarters and R&D centre were located at Airport City near Tel Aviv, and its primary manufacturing was conducted first at Mishor Adumim in the occupied West Bank and, from October 2015, at the Lehavim facility in the Negev.814
SodaStream’s commercial model is direct-to-consumer and retail-channel: home carbonation machines, refillable CO₂ cylinders, and flavoured syrup concentrates sold through major retail chains across Europe, North America, and Australia. Prior to acquisition, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Switzerland, and Australia were the company’s largest revenue markets; Israel functioned primarily as a manufacturing and headquarters hub rather than a principal consumer market.9 PepsiCo’s 2022 Investor Day presentations describe SodaStream as a significant driver of the at-home beverages category within its EMEA segment.21
PepsiCo completed the acquisition in December 2018. Since then, SodaStream has operated as a wholly owned subsidiary integrated into PepsiCo’s EMEA business unit, with SodaStream Ltd. (Israel) and SodaStream International B.V. (Netherlands) both listed as material subsidiaries in PepsiCo’s annual Exhibit 21 filings.22 The Israeli operating entity continues to carry Israeli tax residency; the Lehavim manufacturing facility remains SodaStream’s global production hub; and the Airport City R&D and headquarters function continues within PepsiCo’s consolidated structure.2221
A group-attribution note: PepsiCo also operates a separate long-standing joint venture with Strauss Group Israel — Strauss-PepsiCo — for salty snack distribution within Israel. This constitutes an additional PepsiCo group-level Israeli commercial and equity presence, distinct from SodaStream’s operations, and is noted where relevant under group-attribution principles throughout this dossier.23
The V-MIL audit returns uniformly nil findings across every substantive criterion. No public evidence of any contract, tender award, framework agreement, or memorandum of understanding between SodaStream and the Israeli Ministry of Defence, the Israel Defence Forces, the Israel Border Police, the Israel Prison Service, or any other Israeli state security body has been identified in any source class reviewed.249
SodaStream’s product portfolio — home carbonation machines, CO₂ pressure cylinders, and flavoured syrups — is structurally a consumer goods range with no identified dual-use, mil-spec, or tactical variant. The company’s SEC Form 20-F annual reports, covering financial years through 2017 (the last independent filings before the PepsiCo acquisition), describe the business entirely in terms of consumer home carbonation equipment and associated consumables, without any reference to defence or security-sector customers, contracts, or revenue streams.9 This characterisation is consistent across all reviewed filing years and is uncontradicted by any NGO, academic, or regulatory source. Post-acquisition, PepsiCo’s consolidated 10-K filings and ESG reports do not reference any defence or security-sector contracts attributable to the SodaStream operating unit.25
The Mishor Adumim factory — the most contested aspect of SodaStream’s history — does not generate a V-MIL finding. SodaStream’s presence at that site was that of a commercial manufacturing tenant within settlement industrial infrastructure: it produced consumer devices and CO₂ cylinders, not weapons, military components, or defence-relevant goods. No evidence of separate construction, maintenance, or expansion contracts for checkpoints, separation barrier segments, detention facilities, or military bases has been identified. Civil society organisations that documented Mishor Adumim extensively, including Who Profits, B’Tselem, and Amnesty International, characterised the relevant activity as settlement economic presence — not military manufacturing, dual-use supply, or defence contracting.2627
SIBAT (Israel’s Defence Export and Defence Cooperation Directorate) documentation does not show SodaStream in any identifiable registry. The absence of SodaStream from SIBAT-adjacent documentation must be read alongside structural opacity in Israeli defence procurement databases; the finding reflects both genuine negative evidence and an evidence-base limitation. However, the breadth of convergent null findings — across UN sources, PAX’s Companies Arming Israel report (June 2024), Al-Haq’s 2024 corporate complicity publication, AFSC Investigate, and the Special Rapporteur’s A/HRC/59/23 report — makes a false negative highly unlikely.282930
No supply-chain integration between SodaStream and Israeli defence prime contractors — Elbit Systems, Israel Aerospace Industries, Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, or IMI Systems — has been identified. SodaStream’s manufacturing competencies (consumer-grade injection-moulded plastics, CO₂ cylinder assembly, consumer electronics assembly) do not appear in Elbit, IAI, or Rafael supplier or co-production records accessible publicly.9 No joint development programmes, co-production agreements, or licensed manufacturing relationships with any defence prime have been identified.
SodaStream does produce CO₂ pressure cylinders, a broadly used industrial gas product. No military-specified contract supply of CO₂, no end-user certificate linking SodaStream CO₂ assets to Israeli defence end-users, and no defence export licence decision related to SodaStream products have been identified in any jurisdiction.31 The company’s CO₂ operations are not referenced in any export control review. No logistical sustainment, base services, or catering contracts with IDF or other Israeli security installations have been identified. No munitions, weapons platforms, or strategic systems roles have been identified across any evidence source or period.
Regarding the post-October 7, 2023 conflict context: no new evidence of SodaStream or PepsiCo-SodaStream entering Israeli defence or security-sector contracts, supplying dual-use products, or taking on military supply relationships has emerged in any public source through April 2026.25
The principal structural limitation of this analysis is SIBAT opacity. Israel’s full defence supplier and co-production registry does not have a publicly searchable open-access equivalent, meaning that a genuine defence contract relationship between SodaStream and an Israeli security body could theoretically exist without appearing in identifiable public documentation. This limitation is acknowledged, but it is substantially offset by the breadth of convergent negative evidence from independent, non-state-aligned sources: UN treaty bodies, international human rights NGOs, the PAX weapons-supply report, and civil society databases all returned nil findings.2829 A false negative of this scale would require systematic suppression across wholly independent source families.
A second structural limitation is that, post-2018, SodaStream ceased filing independent SEC disclosures and is now consolidated within PepsiCo’s global reporting. No disaggregated SodaStream-level supplier relationship data is publicly available. If a defence relationship were established post-acquisition, it might not be independently visible in public corporate filings. However, no indication of such a relationship has emerged from any civil society database, trade press, or NGO investigation through April 2026.
The Strauss Group nexus — PepsiCo’s separate Israeli joint venture partner — has itself been subject to civil society attention regarding historical donations to IDF combat units. This is attributable to Strauss Group’s own conduct, not to SodaStream or to PepsiCo’s SodaStream subsidiary. No documented operational integration between Sabra/Strauss and SodaStream in the military domain has been identified. This group-attribution dimension would require separate dedicated analysis of the Strauss-PepsiCo JV.
For the V-MIL score to change materially upward, an investigator would need to find: a named IMOD or IDF contract with SodaStream; a confirmed CO₂ or component supply to an Israeli military end-user with documentary evidence; a Birnbaum or PepsiCo executive equity holding in an Israeli defence prime; or a SodaStream subsidiary appearing in SIBAT export licensing documentation.
| Entity | Type | Role in Domain | Evidence Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| SodaStream International Ltd. | Subject | Consumer manufacturer; no defence contracts identified | Confirmed nil |
| PepsiCo Inc. | Parent | Consolidated reporting; no defence-sector attribution | Confirmed nil |
| Israeli Ministry of Defence / IDF | Potential counterparty | No contract or tender identified | No public evidence |
| SIBAT | Registry | No SodaStream listing identifiable; structural opacity acknowledged | Evidence gap |
| Elbit Systems / IAI / Rafael / IMI | Defence primes | No supply-chain integration identified | No public evidence |
| Who Profits Research Center | Civil society | Documents settlement presence; no military finding | Published profile 26 |
| PAX for Peace | Civil society | Companies Arming Israel (2024); SodaStream not listed | Confirmed nil 28 |
| Al-Haq | Civil society | 2024 corporate complicity report; SodaStream historical only | Confirmed nil 29 |
| Amnesty International | Civil society | Settlement-economy reporting; no military finding | Confirmed nil 27 |
| Daniel Birnbaum | CEO 2007–2019 | No defence-industry directorships or FIDF donations identified | No public evidence |
| Strauss Group | PepsiCo JV partner | Separate entity; IDF-donation history not attributable to SodaStream | Group-attribution note |
The V-DIG audit returns nil findings across every substantive sub-criterion. SodaStream is a consumer goods manufacturer; it does not operate in the cybersecurity, defence technology, software-as-a-service, or platform technology sectors. Its technology assets consist of patents in carbonation mechanics and appliance engineering.9
No verified, named licensing or subscription relationships between SodaStream (or PepsiCo, specifically in the context of SodaStream’s operations) and any Israeli-origin or Israeli-founded cybersecurity or technology vendor have been identified. This applies to Check Point Software, Wiz, SentinelOne, CyberArk, NICE Systems, Verint, Claroty, or Palo Alto Networks. PepsiCo’s security vendor stack is not publicly itemised at the subsidiary level in SEC filings, investor relations publications, or trade press coverage reviewed.25 Statistical likelihood of commercial relationship — given PepsiCo’s enterprise scale — does not constitute verified evidence and is not treated as such in this assessment.
SodaStream’s R&D and manufacturing operations are headquartered at Be’er Sheva (Omer Industrial Zone) in Israel following the 2015 factory closure.32 Be’er Sheva hosts a dense cluster of Israeli cybersecurity companies and the Israeli National Cyber Directorate. Geographic co-location in the same city does not constitute a verified vendor relationship; no R&D collaboration, joint venture, or technology transfer arrangement between SodaStream and any proximate cybersecurity institution has been identified in any source class reviewed.
PepsiCo has two documented group-level technology relationships that would in principle extend to SodaStream as a business unit: an enterprise SAP S/4HANA ERP deployment, and a preferred cloud platform partnership with Microsoft Azure announced in January 2020.33 Neither relationship generates a V-DIG finding for SodaStream. The Azure partnership is described as a global cloud transformation programme; no Israel-specific data residency arrangement, no Azure Israel Central region designation for SodaStream’s operations, and no Project Nimbus participation have been publicly disclosed or identified.34 Microsoft Azure opened its Israel Central data centre region in 2023; if SodaStream’s Israeli operations use Azure for cloud workloads, they would have the option to specify that region for data localisation — but no public evidence of this selection exists, and it would constitute an ordinary commercial cloud arrangement rather than a surveillance or intelligence-technology nexus even if confirmed.
SodaStream’s consumer-facing digital assets — its website, mobile application (SodaStream+), and limited connectivity features on select product lines — collect low-sensitivity consumer product telemetry: carbonation tracking, product usage metrics, CO₂ level monitoring. This is bulk commercial consumer data, not location, biometric, communications, or financial data. No public evidence has been identified that this consumer data is stored or processed through Israeli-domiciled infrastructure or is subject to Israeli law enforcement access mechanisms beyond standard legal obligations applicable to any Israeli-entity data.35
The V-DIG audit confirmed nil findings against the specific high-risk benchmarks: no Project Nimbus participation; no AI, machine learning, or autonomous systems provision to Israeli state, military, or security bodies; no surveillance or biometric deployment at SodaStream facilities; no identified controlling-principal equity holdings in Israeli surveillance or military-technology firms.3436 The UN Special Rapporteur’s A/HRC/59/23 report (Albanese, 2025), which specifically addresses cloud infrastructure, AI, and surveillance in the occupation economy context in §§36–43, does not name SodaStream or PepsiCo.34
The most significant limitation is that PepsiCo’s technology vendor stack — including any Israeli-origin vendor relationships applicable to SodaStream’s Israeli operations — is not publicly itemised at the subsidiary level. The absence of a named vendor relationship in public records cannot fully exclude the existence of one. This gap is most acute for: (a) endpoint security or network security products, where Israeli-origin vendors have high global market share; (b) enterprise IT systems serving the Lehavim manufacturing floor; and (c) any integrator-mediated vendor relationships that would not appear in corporate filings.
A second gap concerns Microsoft Azure and the Israel Central region. PepsiCo is a confirmed Azure customer at the global level; Azure Israel Central opened in 2023. Whether SodaStream’s Israeli operations route through this region is not publicly disclosed. Even if confirmed, this would represent an ordinary commercial cloud arrangement and not by itself a V-DIG-relevant finding — but the data residency question and any associated Israeli government access mechanisms would warrant further investigation.
A third gap concerns Daniel Birnbaum’s post-departure activities (2019–2026). The audit notes possible advisory or board-level involvement with Israeli business and technology enterprises post-2019, including in the security/risk technology sector, but the specific organisations and nature of these roles have not been confirmed with sufficient precision. Low-confidence evidence of this kind is not scored.
For the V-DIG score to change materially upward, an investigator would need to find: a confirmed SodaStream or PepsiCo procurement relationship with a named Israeli surveillance or intelligence-technology vendor specifically in connection with SodaStream’s operations; evidence of consumer data routing through Israeli-domiciled infrastructure with state-access implications; or a confirmed Birnbaum or PepsiCo executive equity holding in an Israeli surveillance or cyber firm.
| Entity | Type | Role in Domain | Evidence Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| SodaStream International Ltd. | Subject | Consumer manufacturer; no digital-sector technology role | Confirmed nil |
| PepsiCo Inc. | Parent | Azure partnership (global, no Israel region confirmed); no Israeli vendor attribution | Confirmed nil |
| Microsoft Azure | Cloud vendor | PepsiCo global preferred cloud; Israel Central region opened 2023; no SodaStream-specific selection | Evidence gap 33 |
| SAP S/4HANA | ERP vendor | PepsiCo group-level; no Israel-specific SodaStream confirmation | Evidence gap |
| Check Point / Wiz / SentinelOne / CyberArk / Verint | Israeli-origin cybersecurity vendors | No verified SodaStream/PepsiCo contract identified | No public evidence |
| Israeli National Cyber Directorate | State body | Geographic proximity to Be’er Sheva R&D; no collaboration identified | No public evidence |
| Project Nimbus (Google / AWS) | Israeli government cloud programme | SodaStream not a participant | Confirmed nil 34 |
| Daniel Birnbaum | Former CEO | Post-2019 tech sector activities; specifics unconfirmed | Low-confidence gap |
| SOMO | Civil society | Israeli tech / digital infrastructure investigations; SodaStream not named | Confirmed nil 37 |
| Amnesty Int’l (Outsourcing Occupation) | Civil society | Surveillance tech report (2023); SodaStream not named | Confirmed nil 38 |
| UN A/HRC/59/23 | UN report | Cloud/AI/surveillance section §§36–43; SodaStream not named | Confirmed nil 34 |
V-ECON is the dominant domain and the primary driver of SodaStream’s BDS-1000 composite score. The scoring reflects SodaStream’s structural position as an Israeli-origin company whose operational heart has remained tethered to the Israeli economy throughout its history, notwithstanding its 2018 acquisition by a US multinational.
Three Israeli-Nexus Floor factors are confirmed in public records. First, SodaStream was founded in Israel, growing out of Soda-Club Ltd., an Israeli company, and incorporated and publicly listed on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange before its NASDAQ IPO in November 2010.9 This founding-in-Israel factor is unconditional and permanent in the rubric’s structure. Second, SodaStream’s operational headquarters — its principal place of management, R&D, and corporate functions — has remained at Airport City, Israel, throughout its independent existence and continues within PepsiCo’s subsidiary structure post-acquisition, as confirmed by Israeli business press and PepsiCo subsidiary disclosures.3922 Third, SodaStream Ltd. (Israeli operating entity) continues to be registered and tax-resident in Israel, separately listed in PepsiCo’s annual Exhibit 21 subsidiary filings.22
Beyond the three floor factors, multiple aggravating indicators are documented. SodaStream employs approximately 1,400–1,500 workers at its Lehavim Negev facility — its sole global manufacturing hub since October 2015 — making it one of the larger private-sector employers in the Negev region.14 Israeli government entities actively facilitated the Lehavim relocation: the Negev Development Authority and Ministry of Economy provided financial incentives and grants, and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu personally attended the factory inauguration in October 2015, reflecting state-level political and economic endorsement of SodaStream as an industrial anchor.40 The Israel Export Institute cited SodaStream as a flagship Israeli export brand and consumer goods success story in promotional publications.41 During the independent company period, SodaStream benefited from “Approved Enterprise” status under Israel’s Law for the Encouragement of Capital Investments, reducing its effective Israeli corporate tax rate on manufacturing income — though whether PepsiCo has maintained or renegotiated this status post-acquisition is an identified evidence gap.9
The historical settlement manufacturing at Mishor Adumim — closed October 2015, OHCHR database entry subsequently removed on cessation grounds — is not invoked as a current Settlement-Nexus Escalator because the cessation is verified, concrete, durable, and now a decade old.5 The activity belongs to the company’s historical record and informs the qualitative picture, but the present-tense V-ECON scoring reflects the Lehavim operations within internationally recognised Israeli territory.
The V-ECON Impact score of 8.00 reflects the “Acquired Identity” rubric band: a company founded in Israel, with its operational heart and brand identity inseparably tethered to the Israeli economy, now owned by foreign capital. The literal three-factor Israeli-Nexus Floor language creates upward pressure toward 9.0+ (Critical Infrastructure / Structural Pillar), but SodaStream is not water, power, ports, or telecommunications backbone infrastructure. The Acquired Identity band (7.5–8.2) is the more accurate substantive fit for a major Israeli industrial employer and export brand that is now a foreign-owned subsidiary. The Proximity score of 9.00 (Direct Operator) reflects that SodaStream Ltd. — the Israeli operating entity — directly performs the manufacturing, R&D, and economic-integration activity.22
The Strauss-PepsiCo joint venture constitutes an additional group-level PepsiCo Israeli commercial and equity presence, documented in Strauss Group annual reports.23 PepsiCo holds an equity stake in this JV for salty snack distribution within Israel, the precise percentage of which is not separately disclosed in PepsiCo’s public filings. This is a group-attribution finding relevant to PepsiCo’s overall Israeli economic footprint, assessed separately from SodaStream’s direct operations.
The principal counter-argument to the V-ECON score is that SodaStream has been a wholly owned US subsidiary since December 2018, meaning profit flows now consolidate into PepsiCo’s US parent financial statements rather than accruing to Israeli capital. Israel functions as a cost and manufacturing centre under the post-acquisition structure rather than a profit-booking domicile.17 This is a genuine and material structural change: the company is no longer under Israeli ownership or control, and the Israeli-nexus is now operational rather than capital-return.
A second counter-argument is that SodaStream’s consumer products are sold primarily in European, North American, and Australian markets; Israeli consumer revenue is not a material disclosed line item. The economic contribution to Israel is therefore through employment, manufacturing activity, tax payments, and operational expenditure rather than through Israeli market dominance or monopoly provision of essential goods or services.
Specific evidence gaps that constrain precision include: the current post-acquisition workforce headcount at Lehavim (partially confirmed but not separately disclosed in PepsiCo filings); the quantum of Israeli government grants for the Lehavim relocation (Israeli press referenced incentives but specific amounts were not publicly disclosed); the post-acquisition status of the Approved Enterprise / Beneficiary Enterprise tax incentive (not disclosed in PepsiCo filings); and the specific PepsiCo equity percentage in the Strauss-PepsiCo JV.
For the V-ECON score to change materially downward, one would need to find: that SodaStream’s Israeli manufacturing operations have been substantially relocated or wound down; that PepsiCo has divested the SodaStream Israeli operating entity; or that the Lehavim facility is no longer the global manufacturing hub. None of these events has been identified in any source through April 2026.
| Entity | Type | Role in Domain | Evidence Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| SodaStream International Ltd. / SodaStream Ltd. (Israel) | Subject / Operating entity | Israeli-incorporated, tax-resident operating company; Lehavim manufacturing; Airport City HQ/R&D | Confirmed active 22 |
| SodaStream International B.V. | Intermediate holding | Netherlands-domiciled holding company; PepsiCo Exhibit 21 confirmed | Confirmed 22 |
| PepsiCo Inc. | US parent | Acquirer December 2018; USD 3.2bn; controls profit flows | Confirmed 17 |
| Lehavim Industrial Zone | Physical site | Primary manufacturing hub since October 2015; ~1,400–1,500 employees | Confirmed 14 |
| Airport City, Israel | Physical site | Corporate HQ and R&D; ongoing post-acquisition | Confirmed 39 |
| Mishor Adumim Industrial Zone | Former site | West Bank settlement manufacturing; closed October 2015 | Discontinued 8 |
| Negev Development Authority / Israeli Ministry of Economy | State bodies | Provided grants / incentives for Lehavim relocation | Confirmed 40 |
| Benjamin Netanyahu | Political actor | Attended Lehavim inauguration October 2015 | Confirmed 40 |
| Israel Export Institute | State-linked body | Designated SodaStream as flagship export brand | Confirmed 41 |
| Strauss Group / Strauss-PepsiCo JV | PepsiCo JV partner | Separate Israeli commercial equity stake at PepsiCo group level | Confirmed (group) 23 |
| UN OHCHR Settlement Database | UN body | Historical Mishor Adumim listing; SodaStream removed post-cessation | Confirmed 5 |
| AFSC Investigate | Civil society | PepsiCo profile; SodaStream historical settlement reference | Active profile 42 |
| Daniel Birnbaum | CEO 2007–2019 | Oversaw Mishor Adumim operations and Lehavim relocation | Departed 2019 |
| Norwegian GPFG (NBIM) | Institutional investor | Exclusion list does not include PepsiCo/SodaStream | Confirmed nil 43 |
The V-POL domain records three analytically distinct findings, each reflecting a different mechanism of political involvement: (1) the sustained “peace factory” / “coexistence” narrative deployed by CEO Birnbaum during 2013–2016 and its characterisation as humanitarian-washing; (2) PepsiCo’s documented asymmetric public positioning on Ukraine versus Gaza; and (3) PepsiCo’s board opposition to Israel-Palestine human rights due diligence shareholder resolutions during the 2023–2024 proxy cycles.
The Birnbaum “peace factory” narrative is the most documented and analytically significant finding for the pre-acquisition period. From 2013 through 2016, Birnbaum made the company’s employment of Palestinian workers at the Mishor Adumim facility the centrepiece of SodaStream’s institutional response to the BDS campaign and international media scrutiny. His formulation — “We are proof that coexistence works” — appeared in Haaretz, TIME Magazine, Forbes, and multiple other outlets, and was embedded in SodaStream’s investor relations and SEC risk-factor disclosures.444546 This was not a marginal or incidental framing: it was the company’s primary public response across media interviews, earnings calls, and crisis communications contexts during the most intense period of activist pressure.
Civil society investigators — including Amnesty International, Who Profits, and 972 Magazine — characterised this framing as a form of humanitarian-washing: using Palestinian employment within a settlement manufacturing context as a deflection from the legal and ethical status of the settlement operation itself. This analysis is consistent with the framework in UN Special Rapporteur A/HRC/59/23 §§87–93, which addresses the use of employment and development arguments to obscure the structural dimensions of settlement-economy participation.34 The humanitarian-washing characterisation is well-grounded in documented NGO findings; it is not a rhetorical label introduced by this dossier.
The Johansson/Oxfam controversy of January 2014 crystallised this dynamic publicly.4748 SodaStream declined to modify its settlement operations in response to Oxfam’s stated concerns and used Johansson’s continued endorsement as a public signal of confidence in its position. The episode amplified the “coexistence” framing to an international audience far beyond the activist community.
Following Birnbaum’s departure in March 2019 and SodaStream’s full absorption into PepsiCo, SodaStream ceased issuing independent political communications. The political findings for the current period are attributable at the parent (PepsiCo) level. In February 2022, PepsiCo issued public statements in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, announcing a suspension of capital investment and advertising in Russia while continuing to sell essential food products on humanitarian grounds.18 This is a documented instance of public geopolitical positioning and operational adjustment by the parent entity. No comparable public statement, supply-chain review, or operational adjustment has been identified from PepsiCo or SodaStream addressing Israeli military conduct in Gaza, Palestinian civilian casualties, or the humanitarian situation in Gaza through April 2026.1825 This asymmetry — public statement and operational response on Ukraine; silence on Gaza — is the Double Standard finding in the V-POL domain, attributable to SodaStream within the consolidated group.
During the 2023–2024 proxy seasons, PepsiCo received shareholder resolutions on human rights due diligence in contexts including the Middle East/Israel-Palestine; PepsiCo’s board recommended voting against such resolutions.49 This is moderate-confidence evidence (the precise SodaStream-specific language in these resolutions has not been confirmed in primary documents) but is consistent with PepsiCo’s general posture of opposing externally submitted ESG-linked resolutions that it characterises as micromanaging operations.
The Neutrality Floor is triggered because V-ECON scores above 5.0, meaning V-POL cannot fall below 2.0 regardless of the findings. The Double Standard finding (Ukraine/Gaza asymmetry) confirms Band 2.1–3.0 independently. The humanitarian-washing finding and the shareholder-resolution opposition push the Impact score toward 3.5 — below Band 4.1–5.0 (Active Suppression) because the resolution-specificity evidence is not high-confidence and the verified conduct is primarily a communications-posture asymmetry rather than active suppression of Palestinian political rights.
The Proximity score of 7.50 reflects the founder-emeritus / public-face founder rule for Birnbaum’s conduct during 2013–2019 (no operating role for six-plus years, but the political conduct was committed during his CEO tenure and no corporate disavowal exists) and the Active Parent characterisation for PepsiCo’s current Ukraine/Gaza asymmetry and shareholder-vote conduct.
The strongest counter-argument to the V-POL finding is that Birnbaum left SodaStream in March 2019 and has had no verified operating role at the company since. The “peace factory” narrative he drove was a product of his personal leadership style and the specific pressures of the 2013–2016 controversy period; it has not been continued by his successors under PepsiCo ownership. Under the founder-emeritus proximity rule, a discount applies to reflect this distance.
A second counter-argument concerns the Ukraine/Gaza asymmetry at PepsiCo. PepsiCo is a US multinational, not an Israeli company; its asymmetric response to geopolitical situations may reflect US corporate norms, legal risk management considerations, and the specific circumstances of the Ukraine invasion (a direct threat to PepsiCo’s Russian operations giving it a clear business rationale for public positioning) rather than political alignment with Israeli state policy. The absence of a Gaza statement is absence of evidence rather than evidence of political alignment. That said, the Double Standard rubric band does not require intent; it scores observable asymmetry in corporate public response to comparable geopolitical situations.
A third counter-argument is that no verified personal donations to FIDF, JNF, settlement organisations, or comparable entities by Birnbaum, PepsiCo executives, or SodaStream board members have been identified. The V-POL finding rests on communications posture and proxy-vote conduct rather than on financial contributions to conflict-relevant organisations.
Evidence gaps include: the specific SodaStream-granular language in PepsiCo’s 2023–2024 proxy-season human rights due diligence resolutions (moderate confidence); Birnbaum’s post-2019 specific organisational affiliations and advisory roles (low confidence); and whether any post-PepsiCo SodaStream leadership has made public statements on the post-October 2023 conflict.
For the V-POL score to change materially upward, one would need to find: confirmed PepsiCo or SodaStream executive donations to FIDF, JNF, or settlement organisations; confirmed registered lobbying by SodaStream or PepsiCo on Israel-Palestine policy or anti-BDS legislation; or post-ICJ AO/post-ICC warrant continuation of occupation-economy activity with documented corporate awareness.
| Entity | Type | Role in Domain | Evidence Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Daniel Birnbaum | CEO 2007–2019 | “Peace factory” / “coexistence” humanitarian-washing narrative; anti-BDS public advocacy | Well-documented 4445 |
| SodaStream International Ltd. | Subject | Platform for Birnbaum’s political framing; institutional settlement defence | Confirmed 9 |
| PepsiCo Inc. | Parent | Ukraine/Gaza statement asymmetry; board opposition to HR due diligence resolutions | Confirmed (asymmetry) 1849 |
| Scarlett Johansson | Brand ambassador (2014) | Public statements defending SodaStream settlement employment; Oxfam controversy | Discontinued 4748 |
| Oxfam | Civil society | Public distancing from Johansson/SodaStream citing settlement operations | Documented 47 |
| BDS National Committee | Civil society | Primary campaign organisation; SodaStream as flagship target 2012–2016 | Documented 50 |
| Kav LaOved | Israeli civil society | Documented structural labour constraints on Palestinian Mishor Adumim workers | Documented 51 |
| Amnesty International | Civil society | Humanitarian-washing characterisation of “coexistence” framing | Published 52 |
| Who Profits Research Center | Civil society | Settlement-economy profile; humanitarian-washing framing | Published 26 |
| 972 Magazine | Media | Coverage of Palestinian worker conditions and BDS pressure | Published |
| ICJ (Advisory Opinion, 19 July 2024) | International court | OPT presence found unlawful; no SodaStream/PepsiCo response identified | Constructive notice 53 |
| ICC (Warrants, 21 November 2024) | International court | Netanyahu/Gallant warrants; no SodaStream/PepsiCo response identified | Constructive notice 20 |
| Fortissimo Capital | Pre-acquisition majority shareholder | Israeli PE; no settlement-donation evidence identified | No public evidence |
| Eyal Shohat | CEO 2019–present | Post-Birnbaum leadership; no political statements identified | Moderate confidence |
The overarching limitation of this dossier is that SodaStream ceased filing independent public disclosures in December 2018, making the post-acquisition period structurally opaque at the subsidiary level. PepsiCo’s consolidated reporting does not disaggregate SodaStream’s operational, financial, or supply-chain data. Material developments in SodaStream’s Israeli operations — including the current workforce headcount, tax incentive status, CO₂ supplier identity, and technology vendor relationships — are not separately disclosed and cannot be assessed from public records alone.
A second cross-domain limitation is that the most politically charged period of SodaStream’s history (Mishor Adumim, 2012–2015) predates the key international legal benchmarks (ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 2024, ICC warrants of November 2024) by nearly a decade, and the settlement activity has verifiably ceased. The question of constructive notice — whether continuation of Israeli operational activity after these legal milestones creates additional exposure — is substantially moot for SodaStream specifically because its primary occupation-economy nexus was already discontinued.
The Strauss Group JV at the PepsiCo group level represents a meaningful unresolved group-attribution thread. Strauss Group has its own civil society profile regarding IDF-unit donations and settlement-economy connections. A full assessment of whether and how PepsiCo’s equity stake in the Strauss-PepsiCo JV generates scoring exposure at the group level (and by extension at SodaStream’s operating-group level) would require a dedicated separate audit of that relationship.
| Entity | Type | Primary Domain | Key Role | Evidence Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SodaStream International Ltd. | Subject | All | Consumer carbonation manufacturer; Israeli-origin; PepsiCo subsidiary | Active |
| SodaStream Ltd. (Israel) | Operating subsidiary | V-ECON | Israeli tax-resident operating entity; Lehavim manufacturing | Confirmed active |
| SodaStream International B.V. | Holding company | V-ECON | Netherlands intermediate holding; PepsiCo Exhibit 21 | Confirmed |
| PepsiCo Inc. | Parent | V-ECON, V-POL | US acquirer; USD 3.2bn; consolidated control | Active |
| Daniel Birnbaum | Executive | V-POL, V-MIL | CEO 2007–2019; humanitarian-washing framing; departed 2019 | Historical |
| Eyal Shohat | Executive | V-POL | CEO 2019–present; no public political statements identified | Moderate confidence |
| Lehavim Industrial Zone | Physical site | V-ECON | Primary manufacturing; ~1,400–1,500 employees | Active |
| Mishor Adumim Industrial Zone | Former site | V-ECON, V-POL | West Bank settlement manufacturing; closed October 2015 | Discontinued |
| Strauss Group / Strauss-PepsiCo JV | PepsiCo JV | V-ECON | Separate Israeli snack JV; group-level equity stake | Active (group) |
| Who Profits Research Center | Civil society | V-MIL, V-ECON, V-POL | Settlement-economy corporate profiling | Published 26 |
| B’Tselem | Civil society | V-MIL | Documents Mishor Adumim as settlement industrial zone | Published 54 |
| Amnesty International | Civil society | V-POL | Apartheid reporting; humanitarian-washing characterisation | Published 52 |
| Human Rights Watch | Civil society | V-ECON | Occupation, Inc. (2016); settlement labour conditions | Published 55 |
| AFSC Investigate | Civil society | V-ECON, V-DIG | PepsiCo/SodaStream profile; historical settlement reference | Active 42 |
| Al-Haq | Civil society | V-MIL, V-POL | Corporate complicity reporting; SodaStream historical | Published 29 |
| PAX for Peace | Civil society | V-MIL | Companies Arming Israel (2024); SodaStream not listed | Confirmed nil 28 |
| BDS National Committee | Advocacy | V-POL | Primary campaign; PepsiCo/SodaStream active target | Active 50 |
| Kav LaOved | Civil society | V-POL | Palestinian worker labour rights documentation | Published 51 |
| UN OHCHR Settlement Database | UN body | V-ECON | Mishor Adumim listing; removed post-cessation | Historical 5 |
| UN Special Rapporteur A/HRC/59/23 | UN report | V-DIG, V-POL | Economy of occupation/genocide; SodaStream not named | Confirmed nil 34 |
| ICJ (Advisory Opinion, July 2024) | International court | V-ECON, V-POL | OPT presence unlawful; constructive notice | Benchmark 53 |
| ICC (Warrants, November 2024) | International court | V-POL | Netanyahu/Gallant warrants; constructive notice | Benchmark 20 |
| Microsoft Azure | Technology vendor | V-DIG | PepsiCo global cloud partner; no Israel region confirmed | Evidence gap 33 |
| Norwegian GPFG (NBIM) | Institutional investor | V-ECON | Exclusion list; PepsiCo/SodaStream not listed | Confirmed nil 43 |
| Scarlett Johansson | Brand ambassador (2014) | V-POL | Oxfam controversy; settlement employment defence | Historical 47 |
| Oxfam | Civil society | V-POL | Distanced from Johansson citing settlement operations | Documented 47 |
| Fortissimo Capital | Pre-acq. shareholder | V-POL | Israeli PE majority pre-2018; no settlement donations identified | No public evidence |
| Domain | I | M | P | V-Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V-MIL | 1.00 | 1.50 | 1.50 | 0.05 |
| V-DIG | 1.00 | 1.50 | 1.50 | 0.05 |
| V-ECON | 8.00 | 7.00 | 9.00 | 8.00 |
| V-POL | 3.50 | 4.00 | 7.50 | 2.00 |
Composite BDS-1000 Score: 526 — Tier C (400–599)
V-ECON is the V_MAX domain at 8.00 and entirely drives the composite. V-POL contributes 2.00 as the largest secondary domain; V-MIL and V-DIG each contribute 0.05. The composite formula weights V_MAX at full value and the sum of other domains at 20%, divided by 16 and scaled to 1,000.
V-MIL and V-DIG score at the floor of identifiable activity because no evidence of military contracting, dual-use technology, defence-prime supply, or surveillance-technology provision has been identified across any reviewed source family. V-ECON scores at 8.00 under the Acquired Identity rubric band — reflecting an Israeli-origin company whose founding, headquarters, manufacturing, R&D, and workforce remain structurally embedded in the Israeli economy, now owned by US capital. V-POL scores at 2.00, triggered by the Neutrality Floor (V-ECON ≥ 5.0), confirmed by the Ukraine/Gaza Double Standard asymmetry at the PepsiCo parent level, and supported by the documented humanitarian-washing of the Birnbaum-era “peace factory” narrative.
High-confidence findings (V-MIL, V-DIG): Null findings across both domains are supported by convergent evidence from UN treaty bodies (A/HRC/59/23), PAX weapons-supply report, Al-Haq 2024, AFSC, Who Profits, and consumer goods sector analysis. The breadth of independent source agreement makes false negatives unlikely, notwithstanding SIBAT opacity (V-MIL) and enterprise IT vendor non-disclosure (V-DIG).
Moderate-high-confidence findings (V-ECON): Three Israeli-Nexus Floor factors are confirmed in primary documents (SEC Exhibit 21, Israeli business press, SodaStream SEC 20-F filings). The I-ECON band judgment between 8.00 (Acquired Identity) and 9.0+ (Critical Infrastructure) is the principal scoring uncertainty; both values produce a Tier C composite outcome. The settlement cessation (Mishor Adumim) is verified, durable, and not invoked for current scoring.
Moderate-confidence findings (V-POL): The Ukraine/Gaza asymmetry is documented at the PepsiCo parent level. The humanitarian-washing characterisation rests on published NGO analysis. Shareholder-resolution opposition specificity to Israel-Palestine is moderate-confidence pending direct proxy document review. No verified personal donations to FIDF, JNF, or settlement organisations have been identified for any executive.
Open questions for future investigation:
– Identity of SodaStream’s Israeli CO₂ supplier(s) — not confirmed in any public document
– Post-acquisition Approved Enterprise / Beneficiary Enterprise tax incentive status — not disclosed in PepsiCo filings
– Quantum of Israeli government grants for the Lehavim relocation — referenced in press, not confirmed in granular primary sources
– Current Lehavim workforce headcount (post-2022) — not separately disclosed in PepsiCo filings
– Whether PepsiCo routes SodaStream’s Israeli operations through Microsoft Azure Israel Central region — an ordinary commercial question with potential data-residency implications
– Birnbaum post-2019 advisory and board roles in Israeli technology / security sector — insufficient precision in available sources for scoring
– Specific SodaStream-granular language in PepsiCo 2023–2024 proxy-season Israel-Palestine human rights due diligence resolutions
– Full scope of the Strauss-PepsiCo JV (equity percentage, operational scope, Strauss Group’s current civil society profile) as a group-level attribution question
For investors and asset managers (Tier C, score 526): SodaStream’s score is elevated primarily by structural Israeli economic integration, not by active military, digital-surveillance, or political-lobbying conduct. Investors in PepsiCo stock should request disclosure of: (a) SodaStream’s Israeli operational headcount and capital expenditure; (b) the status of any Israeli tax incentive programme post-2018 acquisition; and (c) PepsiCo’s policy position on ICJ Advisory Opinion obligations applicable to its Israeli subsidiary operations. The Tier C designation warrants enhanced due diligence rather than automatic divestment, given the absence of military and surveillance findings.
For civil society and advocacy organisations: The most analytically defensible ground for continued scrutiny is SodaStream’s structural Israeli economic presence at Lehavim — an active employer and manufacturing hub — rather than the Mishor Adumim history, which is verifiably discontinued and legally resolved. The PepsiCo Ukraine/Gaza asymmetry is the most current and well-evidenced political finding; shareholder engagement through PepsiCo proxy mechanisms on UNGP-aligned human rights due diligence is a direct available avenue.49 The Strauss-PepsiCo JV warrants dedicated investigation as a separate PepsiCo Israeli equity exposure.
For procurement and supply-chain officers: The nil V-MIL and V-DIG findings mean that SodaStream products themselves (carbonation machines, CO₂ cylinders) do not carry identified dual-use or defence-supply-chain risks. Procurement decisions in those categories should be based primarily on V-ECON and V-POL considerations: the purchase of SodaStream products generates revenue that flows ultimately to PepsiCo (US) as profit, with Israeli manufacturing and employment as the primary Israeli economic-integration mechanism. Organisations with specific Israeli economic exposure policies should assess SodaStream against those policies in light of the V-ECON findings.
For researchers and journalists: The principal unresolved investigative thread is the CO₂ supply chain — the identity of SodaStream’s Israeli industrial gas supplier has not been confirmed in any public document and could represent an additional Israeli-nexus finding or, if the supplier is identified as settlement-adjacent, a supply chain concern. The Strauss-PepsiCo JV and the Birnbaum post-2019 advisory/board activities in Israeli technology represent secondary investigative threads with unresolved evidence gaps.
PepsiCo press release, SodaStream acquisition announcement — https://www.pepsico.com/news/press-release/pepsico-to-acquire-sodastream-for-32-billion08202018 ↩↩
PepsiCo press release, SodaStream acquisition completion — https://www.pepsico.com/news/press-release/pepsico-completes-acquisition-of-sodastream12052018 ↩
Guardian, SodaStream West Bank factory closure — https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/30/sodastream-closes-west-bank-factory ↩
HRW, Occupation, Inc. (2016) — https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/01/19/occupation-inc/how-settlement-businesses-contribute-israels-violations-palestinian-rights ↩
UN OHCHR settlement database — https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/settlements/database ↩↩↩↩↩
Guardian, Johansson/Oxfam/SodaStream — https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/jan/29/scarlett-johansson-oxfam-sodastream ↩
BDS Movement, SodaStream page — https://bdsmovement.net/sodastream ↩
Who Profits, SodaStream corporate profile — https://www.whoprofits.org/company/sodastream/ ↩↩↩
SodaStream SEC Form 20-F filings index — https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001403708&type=20-F&dateb=&owner=include&count=40 ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩↩
Electronic Intifada, SodaStream coverage — https://electronicintifada.net/tags/sodastream ↩
Guardian, Johansson/Oxfam controversy — https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/30/scarlett-johansson-sodastream-oxfam-ambassador ↩
Guardian, Johansson Oxfam resignation — https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/feb/05/scarlett-johansson-resigns-oxfam-ambassador-sodastream ↩
Reuters, SodaStream West Bank factory closure announcement — https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sodastream-factory/sodastream-to-move-factory-from-west-bank-as-bds-pressure-grows-idUSKBN0IJ1KK20141030 ↩
Times of Israel, Lehavim/Idan HaNegev factory opening — https://www.timesofisrael.com/sodastream-officially-opens-negev-factory/ ↩↩↩↩
Reuters, SodaStream West Bank factory closed — https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sodastream-int-factory-idUSKCN0R61YO20150909 ↩
EU settlement labelling guidelines — https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:JOC_2015_375_R_0001 ↩
Financial Times, PepsiCo-SodaStream deal — https://www.ft.com/content/6f8d8c3a-9b3a-11e8-9702-5946bae86e6d ↩↩↩
PepsiCo 10-K filings — https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=PEP&type=10-K&dateb=&owner=include&count=10 ↩↩↩↩↩
ICJ, Advisory Opinion on OPT (Case 163) — https://www.icj-cij.org/case/163 ↩
ICC, arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant — https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/situation-state-of-palestine-icc-pre-trial-chamber-i-rejects-state-of-israels-challenges ↩↩↩
PepsiCo Investor Day 2022 — https://www.pepsico.com/investors/events-and-presentations/investor-day-2022 ↩↩
PepsiCo 10-K Exhibit 21 (2024) — https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/77476/000007747624000010/0000077476-24-000010-index.htm ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩
Strauss Group investor reports — https://www.strauss-group.com/investors/reports-and-presentations/ ↩↩↩
SodaStream 20-F, FY2017 — https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1403708/000140370817000005/0001403708-17-000005-index.htm ↩
PepsiCo ESG and human rights reporting — https://www.pepsico.com/our-impact/esg-topics-a-z/human-rights ↩↩↩↩
Who Profits, SodaStream profile — https://www.whoprofits.org/companies/company/3083 ↩↩↩↩
Amnesty International, Israel/OPT country page — https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/ ↩↩
PAX, Companies Arming Israel and Their Financiers (2024) — https://paxforpeace.nl/our-work/publications/companies-arming-israel-and-their-financiers/ ↩↩↩↩
Al-Haq publications — https://www.alhaq.org/publications/ ↩↩↩↩
AFSC Investigate, SodaStream — https://investigate.afsc.org/company/sodastream ↩
Israeli Ministry of Defence / SIBAT — https://www.mod.gov.il/Defence_Establishment/pages/sibat.aspx ↩
Globes, SodaStream R&D relocation to Be’er Sheva — https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-sodastream-moves-rd-to-beer-sheva-1001056000 ↩
Microsoft, PepsiCo Azure partnership announcement — https://news.microsoft.com/2020/01/15/pepsico-partners-with-microsoft-azure/ ↩↩↩
UN Special Rapporteur, A/HRC/59/23 — https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc5923-economy-occupation-economy-genocide-report-special-rapporteur ↩↩↩↩↩↩↩
SodaStream corporate website — https://www.sodastream.com/en-us/pages/about-sodastream ↩
AFSC Investigate, PepsiCo — https://investigate.afsc.org/company/pepsico ↩
SOMO investigations — https://www.somo.nl/investigations/ ↩
Amnesty International, Outsourcing Occupation (2023) — https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2023/11/outsourcing-occupation/ ↩
Calcalist, SodaStream/PepsiCo Israel — https://www.calcalistech.com/ctech/articles/0,7340,L-3798234,00.html ↩↩
Times of Israel, Netanyahu at Lehavim opening — https://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-sodastream-plant-opening/ ↩↩↩
Globes, PepsiCo Israel / Israel Export Institute context — https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-pepsico-israel-1001299491 ↩↩
AFSC Investigate, PepsiCo profile — https://investigate.afsc.org/company/pepsico ↩↩
NBIM exclusion list — https://www.nbim.no/en/responsible-investment/exclusion-and-observation/ ↩↩
Haaretz, Birnbaum “our workers are brothers” — https://www.haaretz.com/2014-01-28/ty-article/sodastream-ceo-our-workers-are-brothers/0000017f-e3f5-d97e-a57f-fffd43e50000 ↩↩
TIME Magazine, SodaStream Israel-Palestine — https://time.com/5128/sodastream-israel-palestine/ ↩↩
Forbes, Birnbaum “we are proof that coexistence works” — https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2016/01/14/sodastream-ceo-we-are-proof-that-coexistence-works/ ↩
Guardian, Johansson/Oxfam/SodaStream controversy — https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/30/scarlett-johansson-sodastream-oxfam-ambassador ↩↩↩↩↩
Al Jazeera, Oxfam vs. Johansson explained — https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2014/2/6/oxfam-vs-johansson-the-sodastream-affair-explained ↩↩
PepsiCo DEF 14A proxy filings — https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000077476&type=DEF+14A&dateb=&owner=include&count=10 ↩↩↩
BDS Movement, PepsiCo/SodaStream — https://bdsmovement.net/pepsi ↩↩
Kav LaOved (Workers’ Hotline) — https://www.kavlaoved.org.il/en/ ↩↩
Amnesty International, Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians (2022) — https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/5141/2022/en/ ↩↩
ICJ, Advisory Opinion (Case 163) — https://www.icj-cij.org/case/163 ↩↩
B’Tselem, settlement industrial zones — https://www.btselem.org/settlements/industrial_zones ↩
HRW, Occupation, Inc. (2016) — https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/01/19/occupation-inc/how-settlement-businesses-contribute-israels-violations-palestinian-rights ↩
