Audit Phase: V-MIL (Military Forensics)
Target Company: Puma SE
Audit Date: 2026-05-01
Jurisdiction of Incorporation: Federal Republic of Germany (Amtsgericht Fürth)
Sector: Sportswear, Footwear & Apparel; Occupational Safety Footwear (via Puma Safety)
No public evidence identified of any contract, tender award, framework agreement, or memorandum of understanding between Puma SE and the Israeli Ministry of Defence (IMOD), the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), Israel Border Police, Israel Prison Service, or any other Israeli state security body.
The Israeli government e-procurement portal 17 and the SIBAT Israel Defence Export & Defence Cooperation Directorate 10 were assessed as reference classes. No training-data record places Puma SE in either registry as a contracted or registered defence supplier. No corporate press release, government announcement, or trade press report has been identified detailing defence cooperation, joint venture, or partnership agreement between Puma SE and any Israeli defence entity.
No public evidence identified of any Puma SE appearance in international defence exhibition catalogues, NATO procurement registries, US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) records, UK Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) licensed exporter records, or Israeli Knesset procurement oversight records.
Evidence gap: Live query of the SIBAT full supplier directory and the Israeli e-procurement portal (mr.gov.il) 17 was not possible during this audit cycle. Direct database access is recommended to formally close this finding.
Puma SE operates a distinct commercial sub-brand, Puma Safety (also marketed as Puma Safety Shoes), which manufactures occupational health and safety footwear including steel-toed boots, anti-static footwear, slip-resistant soles, and high-durability industrial and construction footwear 11. These product lines are marketed to industrial, construction, oil and gas, and emergency-services end-users through open commercial distribution channels globally 11.
No public evidence identified that any Puma Safety product line has been purpose-built, contract-modified, or certified to Israeli military procurement specifications — such as NATO STANAG compliance, ballistic-resistance ratings, or mil-spec procurement standards 11. Puma Safety products are available on the open commercial market and are not listed as controlled goods under dual-use export control schedules reviewed in training data.
Puma SE’s primary sportswear and performance footwear range — running, training, and lifestyle products — carries no characteristics associated with military-specification equipment 45. No evidence identified of any Israeli military or security force tender award for Puma or Puma Safety footwear through either direct government contracting or documented bulk commercial procurement.
No public evidence identified of any export licence application, end-user certificate, or government export control review specifically related to Puma SE’s sales to Israeli defence or security end-users. German Federal export control authority BAFA records were assessed as a reference class 13; no Puma SE-specific dual-use filing was identified in training data.
Evidence gap: Puma Safety’s industrial safety footwear is sold through commercial distributors in Israel and internationally. Whether any Puma Safety product has been procured by Israeli security forces through standard commercial channels (i.e., without a direct government contract) cannot be fully excluded from training data alone. Direct distributor confirmation and end-user verification are recommended to close this residual gap.
No public evidence identified. Puma SE is a sportswear and footwear manufacturer and does not produce heavy machinery, construction equipment, earthmoving vehicles, engineering plant, prefabricated construction materials, or any analogous category of infrastructure-enabling goods. This domain section is structurally inapplicable to Puma SE’s business model and product portfolio.
Cross-referenced against the following reference-class sources with null result: Who Profits Research Center database 18, the UN OHCHR database of businesses operating in Israeli settlements (A/HRC/43/71, February 2020) 12, Human Rights Watch corporate accountability reporting on Israel/OPT 19, and Amnesty International business and human rights reporting on Israel/OPT 20.
No public evidence identified of any Puma SE contract for the construction, maintenance, servicing, or expansion of checkpoints, detention facilities, military bases, the separation barrier, settlement housing, or any other settlement or security infrastructure in the West Bank, Golan Heights, or East Jerusalem.
No public evidence identified of any supply relationship, component provision, or sub-tier manufacturing arrangement between Puma SE and Israeli defence prime contractors — including Elbit Systems 21, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, or Israel Military Industries (IMI/Elbit Land Systems).
Puma SE’s manufacturing supply chain consists primarily of textile mills, footwear component suppliers, and finished-goods manufacturers concentrated in Asia — principally Vietnam, Bangladesh, Cambodia, and China — as disclosed in its Annual Reports 45. No Israeli defence-industrial entity appears in Puma SE’s disclosed supplier or manufacturing partner base in available training data.
Puma SE does not manufacture optical systems, electronic sub-assemblies, propulsion components, structural defence materials, guidance systems, communications modules, or armour materials. No joint development programme, co-production agreement, technology transfer arrangement, or licensed manufacturing agreement between Puma SE and any Israeli defence firm has been identified.
Elbit Systems’ own supplier disclosures and annual reporting 21 were assessed as a reference class; no Puma SE entity is identified therein in training data.
No public evidence identified of any contract by Puma SE to provide catering, transport, fuel supply, waste management, facilities maintenance, telecommunications, laundry, construction, or other support services to IDF bases, military training facilities, detention centres, border installations, or security facilities — whether within Israel’s internationally recognised territory, the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, or the Gaza perimeter.
No public evidence identified of any Puma SE shipping, freight forwarding, or port handling contract specifically servicing Israeli defence logistics, military cargo consignments, or arms shipments. Puma SE’s disclosed logistics arrangements relate to commercial retail supply chains and sportswear distribution 45.
No public evidence identified. Puma SE is not a defence prime contractor and does not manufacture, integrate, assemble, or supply: small arms or ammunition; artillery systems; armoured fighting vehicles; tactical or strategic unmanned aerial vehicles; naval vessels; missile systems; or any other lethal platform or weapons system.
No public evidence identified of any Puma SE supply of: explosive ordnance or munitions precursors; guidance electronics or fire-control systems; radar or electronic warfare components; propulsion units; warhead casings; or any sub-system component relevant to Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow missile defence, F-35 or other fighter aircraft programmes, Merkava main battle tanks, Sa’ar-class naval vessels, or Israeli ballistic missile programmes.
This domain section is structurally inapplicable to Puma SE’s business. The following Israeli defence procurement and oversight reference classes were assessed with null results: SIBAT directory 10, US DSCA records, UK CAAT licensed exporter records, UN Panel of Experts reports, Jane’s Defence procurement database.
No public evidence identified of any government decision — in Germany, the European Union, the United States, the United Kingdom, or any other jurisdiction — to grant, deny, suspend, or revoke an export licence for Puma SE products to Israeli military or security end-users.
German Federal Office of Economics and Export Control (BAFA) export licence records were assessed as a reference class 13. BAFA’s public export control database covers controlled dual-use goods and military items subject to the EU Dual-Use Regulation and the German Foreign Trade Act (Außenwirtschaftsgesetz). No Puma SE-specific determination, denial notification, or enforcement action was identified in training data.
No public evidence identified of any investigation, citation, regulatory notice, or enforcement action relating to Puma SE’s compliance with arms embargoes, international sanctions regimes, EU Common Position on Arms Exports criteria, or export control frameworks affecting defence trade with Israel or the occupied Palestinian territories.
No public evidence identified of any court proceedings, judicial review applications, or legal challenges brought against Puma SE — or against any government — regarding a defence supply relationship with Israeli security entities.
Evidence gap: BAFA’s full export licence database requires direct query for a definitive nil finding. This is recommended before audit finalisation 13.
The sole documented area of sustained civil society scrutiny of Puma SE in relation to Israel concerns its commercial kit sponsorship of the Israel Football Association (IFA) — not defence contracting, military supply, or security-sector logistics.
The IFA’s membership includes football clubs based in or competing from Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank 22. Palestinian civil society organisations and international NGOs have argued that the IFA’s inclusion of settlement-based clubs in its domestic league structure is inconsistent with FIFA statutes governing territorial eligibility, and that Puma’s sponsorship of the IFA thereby provides commercial legitimacy to an institution facilitating settlement sport 136.
The BDS Movement launched a sustained public campaign branded “Drop Puma” from approximately 2021 onward, calling on Puma SE to terminate its kit sponsorship of the IFA 13. The campaign cited: the IFA’s inclusion of clubs based in illegal settlements under international law; Puma’s provision of kit (apparel and footwear) to the IFA and affiliated settlement-based clubs; and the argument that this constitutes commercial normalisation of settlement activity 1316.
The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) ran a parallel “Drop Puma” campaign beginning in 2021, publishing public briefing materials targeting Puma’s corporate social responsibility commitments and documenting the IFA-settlement club connection 28.
A coalition of more than 200 Palestinian civil society organisations and international NGOs signed an open letter to Puma SE’s CEO in 2021, demanding termination of the IFA sponsorship and invoking Puma’s own Code of Conduct commitments 6. The letter argued the sponsorship constituted complicity in settlement normalisation under international law 6.
The Drop Puma campaign’s documented focus is squarely on sports sponsorship and commercial normalisation of occupation — not on military hardware, weapons components, defence logistics, or security-sector contracting. No training-data record confirms that BDS Movement, AFSC, Who Profits Research Center 18, Amnesty International 20, or Human Rights Watch 19 has published a report specifically naming Puma SE as a subject of direct military or security-sector supply chain concern.
The UN OHCHR database of businesses operating in Israeli settlements (A/HRC/43/71, February 2020) 12 was assessed as a reference class. That database catalogues companies with direct economic activities in settlements — operating retail outlets, supplying to settlement enterprises, constructing settlement infrastructure. No training-data record confirms Puma SE’s inclusion in that database. Live verification is recommended to close this gap formally.
Who Profits Research Center 18 was assessed as a reference class; no specific Puma SE database entry was confirmed in training data. Direct query is recommended.
Puma SE issued at least one public statement (circa 2021) acknowledging the Drop Puma campaign, characterising its IFA sponsorship as a sporting rather than political relationship, and affirming its commitment to human rights principles through its corporate conduct framework 15. As of training data through 2025, Puma SE did not terminate the IFA sponsorship in response to the Drop Puma campaign 12.
Puma SE’s Forever Better sustainability framework and annual sustainability reporting 715 address human rights due diligence across its manufacturing supply chain — covering labour rights, supplier auditing, and environmental standards — but make no reference to Israeli defence or security sector relationships, consistent with the absence of any identified such relationship 9.
Puma SE’s Supplier Code of Conduct 9 sets out labour and environmental standards for manufacturing suppliers. No defence-sector-specific provisions are identified, consistent with Puma SE not operating in the defence sector.
No public evidence identified of any institutional pension fund, sovereign wealth fund, asset manager, or ESG screening agency publicly divesting from, or flagging, Puma SE specifically on grounds related to defence or security-sector activity linked to Israel. Evidence gap: ESG screening databases — including MSCI ESG, Sustainalytics, and RepRisk — should be queried directly for any Puma SE Israel/OPT flag.
https://bdsmovement.net/news/puma-sponsors-israeli-teams-playing-in-illegal-settlements ↩↩↩
https://annual-report.puma.com/2023/en/sustainability/ ↩
https://www.afsc.org/resource/puma-israel-football-association ↩
https://www.gov.il/en/departments/israel_defense_exports_directorate ↩↩
https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/hrc/regular-sessions/session43/list-of-reports ↩↩
https://www.bafa.de/EN/Foreign_Trade/Export_Control/export_control_node.html ↩↩↩
https://www.football.org.il/ ↩
https://bdsmovement.net/bnc ↩
https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/ ↩↩
https://www.football.org.il/ ↩
