This comprehensive governance audit provides an exhaustive evaluation of the political and ideological footprint of Waitrose, a core subsidiary of the John Lewis Partnership (JLP). The primary objective is to determine the extent of the Partnership’s “Political Complicity” regarding the state of Israel, the occupation of Palestinian territories, and associated systems of militarization or surveillance. This assessment is conducted under the rigorous framework of Political Risk Analysis, utilizing a stringent scale ranging from 0.0 (Strict Neutrality) to 10.0 (Ideological Actor).
The investigation scrutinizes the Partnership’s executive leadership composition, supply chain integrity, lobbying associations, internal disciplinary policies, and crisis response mechanisms. While the John Lewis Partnership officially projects an image of ethical trading and corporate responsibility, rooted in its unique employee-owned constitution, the operational realities and governance entanglements reveal a significant deviation from strict neutrality. The audit identifies a sophisticated, structural integration into the economic and diplomatic apparatus supporting the occupation, rather than a passive or accidental engagement.
The analysis identifies four primary vectors of complicity that drive the risk assessment. First, the supply chain demonstrates a persistent integration with settlement economies. Despite public claims of distinguishing between “Israel” and the “West Bank,” Waitrose continues to source high-volume produce—specifically dates and herbs—from suppliers such as Hadiklaim and Mehadrin. These entities are documented to operate within illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Jordan Valley and West Bank, thereby economically sustaining the occupation infrastructure.1
Second, institutional affiliations at the highest level of governance suggest an ideological alignment. The incoming Chairman, Jason Tarry, has a documented history of engagement with Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) 4, while the Partnership itself has maintained historical and ongoing engagement with the British-Israel Chamber of Commerce (now UK Israel Business).5 These relationships are not merely commercial but deeply political, involving lobbying that often runs counter to international human rights consensus.
Third, a “Safe Harbor” test reveals a stark disparity in the corporate response to geopolitical crises. The Partnership enacted swift, total boycotts of Russian products and issued strong condemnatory statements following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.7 Conversely, the response to the Gaza conflict has been characterized by silence on supply chain ethics and the strict enforcement of “neutrality” policies against staff expressing solidarity with Palestine.9 This asymmetry indicates that “neutrality” is applied selectively as a political tool.
Fourth, internal governance policies regarding political expression have been applied with a demonstrable bias. Evidence suggests that employees wearing symbols of Palestinian solidarity face immediate disciplinary action or dismissal under the guise of “brand protection,” while other political or social causes are institutionally endorsed or tolerated.9
Based on the cumulative evidence, Waitrose and the John Lewis Partnership are assigned a Political Complicity Score of 6.8 / 10.0. This score reflects a company that is not explicitly an ideological arm of the state but is functionally integrated into the economy supporting the occupation, resistant to divestment despite clear evidence of settlement links, and enforcing an internal culture that actively suppresses dissent regarding this specific geopolitical issue.
The governance structure of the John Lewis Partnership (JLP) is unique in the UK retail sector, operating as an employee-owned trust. However, the executive leadership—comprising the Chairman, the Partnership Board, and Executive Directors—wields significant influence over strategic direction and ethical policy. An analysis of these key figures reveals a pattern of engagement with Zionist advocacy groups and trade bodies that contradicts a stance of strict political neutrality. This section details the specific ideological footprints of key figures and the systemic inertia within the Board.
The appointment of Jason Tarry as the seventh Chairman of the John Lewis Partnership, effective September 2024, represents a significant shift in the ideological profile of the JLP leadership.10 Tarry, the former CEO of Tesco UK, brings with him a history of political engagement that warrants close scrutiny under the “Governance Ideology” requirement. His background is not merely technocratic; it involves active participation in political networks that have specific foreign policy objectives regarding the Middle East.
Research indicates that Jason Tarry has participated in delegations and events organized by the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI). CFI is not merely a cultural exchange group; it is a primary lobbying vehicle within the UK Conservative Party, explicitly dedicated to advocating for Israeli government interests, strengthening bilateral ties, and often opposing measures that would hold the Israeli state accountable for international law violations.4 The engagement of a high-profile retail executive with such a body signals a willingness to operate within a politicized trade framework.
The implications of Tarry’s involvement with CFI extend beyond personal political preference. CFI delegations are often designed to present a specific narrative of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, emphasizing Israeli security concerns while often minimizing the impact of the occupation on Palestinians. Executives who participate in these trips are often viewed as “friends” of the state, granting them access to high-level networks but also embedding them within a system of reciprocal support. For a retailer like Waitrose, which relies on Israeli agricultural imports, a Chairman with these ties presents a conflict of interest when evaluating the ethical implications of sourcing from the Jordan Valley.
Furthermore, Tarry’s tenure at Tesco provides a predictive model for his leadership at JLP. During his time as CEO of Tesco UK, the retailer faced sustained criticism for stocking settlement goods. While Tesco eventually stopped sourcing from some specific settlement companies, Tarry’s leadership period was generally marked by a resistance to a full boycott, mirroring the “constructive engagement” approach often advocated by trade bodies.13 This suggests that under his chairmanship, JLP is unlikely to view the sourcing of goods from the Jordan Valley as a red line, viewing it instead through the lens of standard commercial trade rather than ethical complicity.
The political donation context reinforces this assessment. While Tarry himself is a business executive, his engagement with CFI aligns him with a political faction that has historically opposed Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) initiatives. The CFI works to counter “delegitimization” of Israel, often conflating criticism of the occupation with antisemitism. Tarry’s willingness to engage with this body suggests an ideological alignment—or at least a strategic comfort—with the pro-Israel lobby’s narrative.14 This alignment raises significant questions about how the Partnership will navigate increasing consumer demands for ethical consistency in the face of ongoing conflict in Gaza and the West Bank.
The ideological footprint of JLP is not limited to its incoming chairman. Historical leadership has also demonstrated significant ties to pro-Israel advocacy, creating a legacy of engagement that influences current operational culture. The governance audit identifies a continuum of leadership that has prioritized trade relations with Israel over strict neutrality or human rights considerations.
Mark Price (Managing Director of Waitrose, 2007–2016):
Mark Price, later Lord Price, served as Managing Director of Waitrose and Deputy Chairman of JLP during a critical period of expansion. His tenure was pivotal in establishing Waitrose’s supply chain relationships in the Middle East. Following his time at Waitrose, Price served as Minister of State for Trade Policy, where he actively promoted UK-Israel trade relations, hosting the first UK-Israel trade policy working group.15
Price’s dual role as a retail leader and subsequently a government trade minister creates a complex legacy. His era solidified the relationships with Israeli agricultural exporters like Mehadrin and Hadiklaim. His subsequent move into government trade policy, specifically targeting Israel, suggests that his commercial decisions at Waitrose were informed by a worldview that prioritizes economic integration with Israel.15 The aggressive promotion of “Brand Israel” during his tenure, exemplified by the “Taste of Israel” brochure controversy, aligns with his later governmental work, indicating a consistent ideological stance that views Israel as a strategic partner rather than a human rights risk.
Sharon White (Chairman, 2020–2024):
Dame Sharon White’s tenure was marked by financial turbulence and a focus on diversification. While less publicly aligned with specific Zionist lobbying groups than Tarry, her administration oversaw the implementation of the “neutrality” policies that have been used to discipline staff for pro-Palestine expression.16 Her leadership failed to address the discrepancies in ethical sourcing regarding settlement goods, maintaining the status quo established by her predecessors.
White’s governance approach regarding the Gaza conflict was characterized by a distinct lack of the moral clarity she expressed regarding Ukraine. While she publicly stated that the conflict in Ukraine “strikes at the heart of our values,” no such statement was forthcoming regarding Gaza. This silence, coupled with the enforcement of disciplinary measures against staff, suggests that her administration viewed the Israel-Palestine conflict as a “political” issue to be managed rather than a “human rights” issue to be acted upon. This reflects a governance ideology that is risk-averse regarding Zionist criticism but dismissive of Palestinian solidarity.
Rita Clifton (Deputy Chairman):
Rita Clifton, serving as Deputy Chairman, has a background in brand strategy and has served on boards of sustainability organizations like WWF.18 While her direct links to Israel advocacy groups are less prominent, her role involves protecting the JLP brand. The audit finds that under her governance, the “brand protection” strategy has involved suppressing pro-Palestine activism (viewed as controversial) rather than addressing the root cause of the controversy (complicity in occupation). This reflects a corporate governance style that prioritizes reputational management over substantive ethical consistency.
The JLP Board structure includes elected partners, which theoretically democratizes decision-making.20 However, the strategic direction is heavily weighted towards the Chairman and appointed Executive Directors. The presence of leaders with backgrounds in finance and corporate retail (e.g., Nish Kankiwala, former CEO) reinforces a “business-first” ideology that marginalizes geopolitical ethics unless they pose an immediate existential threat to the business (as with Russia).22
The audit finds no evidence of a countervailing “pro-Palestinian” or “human rights” faction within the Board. The governance ideology is effectively captured by a “passive Zionism”—a default support for the status quo of trade with Israel, bolstered by specific relationships with lobbying bodies, and resistant to change unless forced by overwhelming external pressure. The lack of diversity in geopolitical perspective at the Board level ensures that decisions regarding supply chains in occupied territories are viewed primarily as logistical or commercial challenges, rather than ethical violations.
| Executive / Director | Role | Risk Factor | Evidence of Affiliation / Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jason Tarry | Incoming Chairman | High | Documented attendance at Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) events; history of managing trade with Israel at Tesco; alignment with anti-BDS political factions.4 |
| Mark Price | Former MD Waitrose | High | Active promotion of UK-Israel trade as government minister; established key supply chains during tenure; oversaw “Taste of Israel” campaign.15 |
| Sharon White | Outgoing Chairman | Medium | Oversaw implementation of disciplinary “neutrality” policies; failed to act on settlement goods discrepancies; asymmetrical response to Ukraine vs. Gaza.16 |
| James Bailey | Exec Director Waitrose | Medium | Operational oversight of supply chains continuing to source from settlement-linked companies (Hadiklaim, Mehadrin); focuses on commercial viability over ethical divestment.25 |
| Jane Cheong Tung Sing | Company Secretary | Low | Governance role; no direct ideological footprint identified, but responsible for enforcing Board policy regarding staff conduct.27 |
The cumulative effect of these leadership profiles is a governance structure that is permeable to pro-Israel lobbying influence while being impermeable to pro-Palestine ethical advocacy. The “tone at the top” is one that values trade continuity and political alignment with the UK establishment, which inherently biases the organization against taking a stand on Israeli violations of international law.
Beyond individual leadership, the corporate entity of the John Lewis Partnership maintains institutional relationships that embed it within the pro-Israel trade ecosystem. These affiliations provide the structural scaffolding for continued complicity, insulating the company from ethical critiques through the legitimacy of “bilateral trade.” The Partnership’s engagement with trade chambers and sponsorship of “Brand Israel” events moves its complicity from passive trading to active normalization.
The audit confirms that the John Lewis Partnership, and by extension Waitrose, operates within the orbit of the British-Israel Chamber of Commerce (B-ICC), now rebranded as UK Israel Business. This relationship is not incidental but structural, facilitating the flow of goods and technology between the two entities.
Evidence points to JLP having engaged with the B-ICC historically and in ongoing capacities. JLP has been listed as a corporate member or participant in B-ICC events.5 The B-ICC is not a neutral trade body; it is an advocacy organization dedicated to promoting Israeli commerce and combating the BDS movement. By maintaining membership, JLP effectively subsidizes an organization whose primary goal is to shield the Israeli economy from political pressure regarding its human rights record.
Membership in UK Israel Business provides JLP executives with direct access to Israeli government officials and business leaders. This network facilitates the smooth operation of supply chains from the region and provides a platform for “Brand Israel” promotion within the UK retail sector. The Chamber actively works to normalize trade with settlement-linked entities, obfuscating the distinction between Israel proper and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT).6 Through these channels, JLP participates in a diplomatic and economic framework that treats the occupation as a non-issue in commercial relations.
Furthermore, the Partnership’s increasing focus on technology and data security has deepened its ties to the Israeli tech sector. Affiliations with groups like the Israel-Britain Chamber of Commerce often extend into cybersecurity, where Israel is a global leader. This creates a secondary layer of dependency, moving beyond produce to critical business infrastructure.30 As JLP digitizes its operations, its reliance on Israeli tech firms creates a “technological lock-in” that makes divestment increasingly difficult and costly, further cementing its relationship with the Israeli state apparatus.
Waitrose has been directly implicated in the promotion of “Brand Israel” narratives, which serve to whitewash the occupation through culinary and cultural diplomacy. This form of “soft power” support is a critical component of ideological complicity.
A definitive instance of this occurred when Waitrose distributed a glossy brochure titled “Taste of Israel”.24 This publication was not merely a collection of recipes but a geopolitical statement. The brochure featured recipes appropriating Palestinian culture—such as za’atar, tahini, and falafel—labeling them as “Israeli,” a common tactic in cultural erasure known as foodwashing. More critically, the brochure listed locations in the Occupied West Bank (such as the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem) as simply “Israel,” implicitly recognizing Israeli sovereignty over these occupied territories.32
This campaign was so egregious that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned the advertisement for misleading consumers regarding the status of Jerusalem and the West Bank.33 The ASA ruling confirmed that the brochure falsely implied that East Jerusalem was part of the state of Israel, a position unrecognized by the international community. Waitrose’s response to this ruling was telling; it was not one of apology or correction but of deflection, framing the brochure as a “tourist” promotion rather than a political statement. This incident demonstrates a willingness to use the Waitrose platform to advance Israeli state narratives, even when they contradict international law and UK advertising standards.
Waitrose has also engaged in “Innovation Days” and technology partnerships that highlight Israeli “start-up nation” achievements. These events often feature companies that have developed their technology through the Israeli military or surveillance sectors. By partnering with these firms, JLP helps to sanitize their reputations and integrate them into the civilian market, ignoring the militarized origins of the technology.
Waitrose stores have frequently been the battleground for “Buycott” campaigns organized by groups like the Fair Play Campaign Group (FPCG) and the Board of Deputies of British Jews. These campaigns are explicitly designed to counter BDS activism by encouraging the mass purchase of Israeli goods.
When pro-Palestinian activists have protested the sale of settlement goods, pro-Israel groups have organized counter-actions to “buy out” Israeli stock.34 Waitrose management has generally facilitated these “Buycotts” while cracking down on BDS protests. Reports indicate that store managers have cooperated with police to remove BDS activists while allowing “Buycott” operations to proceed, viewing the latter as legitimate commerce and the former as disruption.35 This differential treatment underscores an operational bias favoring the sale of Israeli goods over the ethical objections to them. It signals to staff and customers that supporting Israel is “business” while supporting Palestine is “disruption.”
The Partnership’s trade relationships are not casual; they are structural and deeply embedded.
The most tangible evidence of political complicity lies in the physical goods sold on Waitrose shelves. This section audits the origin of products, specifically focusing on the “Safe Harbor” provided to settlement goods through obfuscated labelling and the continued engagement with complicit suppliers. Despite claims of ethical sourcing, the audit reveals a persistent reliance on settlement agriculture.
Waitrose claims to follow DEFRA guidelines regarding the labelling of goods from the Occupied Palestinian Territories. However, the audit reveals a systematic manipulation of these labels to mislead consumers and obscure the true origin of settlement goods.
Waitrose frequently uses the label “Produce of the West Bank” for herbs and dates.38 To the uninformed consumer, this suggests support for the Palestinian economy, as the West Bank is often associated with the Palestinian territories. In reality, the vast majority of these goods originate from illegal Israeli settlements in the Jordan Valley (e.g., Tomer, Mehola, Beit Ha’Arava).40 This labelling practice effectively launders settlement produce, allowing it to be sold to consumers who might otherwise boycott Israeli goods or wish to support Palestinians.
Waitrose has resisted using the more accurate label “Israeli Settlement Produce,” which would allow consumers to make an informed ethical choice. By using the geographic term “West Bank” without specifying the producer’s ethnicity or legal status, Waitrose provides a commercial veil for settlement enterprises.13 This ambiguity is not accidental; it is a known loophole that retailers use to avoid controversy while continuing to trade with settlement suppliers. Waitrose has admitted in correspondence that these farms employ a “mixed Palestinian-Israeli workforce,” a euphemism for the exploitation of Palestinian labor on confiscated land.42
The primary suppliers for Waitrose’s “West Bank” produce are Hadiklaim and Mehadrin.2
Medjool Dates:
Israel produces approximately 50% of the world’s Medjool dates, with a significant portion grown in the Jordan Valley settlements.44 Waitrose stocks “Essential Waitrose” and “Waitrose Duchy” dates. While some packaging claims “Product of Israel,” others say “West Bank.” Independent audits by groups like Corporate Watch have traced these dates back to Hadiklaim and the Tomer settlement.1
During Ramadan, Waitrose promotes these dates heavily. The sale of settlement dates to Muslims breaking their fast is a particularly contentious issue. Despite repeated calls from the Muslim Council of Britain and other bodies to verify the ethical origin of these specific products, Waitrose continues the practice.46 This demonstrates a disregard for the specific ethical concerns of a significant customer demographic in favor of commercial convenience.
Fresh Herbs:
Basil, thyme, and rosemary sold under the Waitrose label are frequently sourced from the Jordan Valley settlements during the winter months. These are often labelled “West Bank,” masking their settlement origin. Waitrose’s claim that these farms employ Palestinian workers ignores the reality that these workers are often employed under exploitative conditions on land confiscated from their own communities.42 The employment of Palestinians in settlements is a symptom of the occupation’s economic strangulation of the Palestinian economy, not a justification for trading with the occupiers.
Citrus and Avocados:
Waitrose sources citrus and avocados from Mehadrin. While some may come from inside the 1948 borders, Mehadrin’s integrated supply chain commingles settlement produce with Green Line produce, making it impossible to guarantee that any Mehadrin product is settlement-free.3 This commingling is a strategic tactic by Israeli exporters to make partial boycotts impossible, forcing retailers to either accept settlement goods or boycott the supplier entirely. Waitrose has chosen the former.
The John Lewis Partnership’s “Responsible Sourcing Code of Practice” 47 theoretically mandates respect for human rights and land rights. However, the audit finds a selective application of this code. The code requires suppliers to respect land rights and operate legally. Israeli settlements are, by definition under international law, built on confiscated occupied land and are illegal. JLP’s continued sourcing from settlement entities constitutes a direct violation of its own Code of Practice.42
Furthermore, reports have documented child labor in the Jordan Valley settlements supplying dates and herbs. JLP relies on certification bodies that often fail to inspect settlement farms rigorously due to security restrictions, accepting the suppliers’ assurances at face value.42 This “audit theater” allows JLP to claim compliance while ignoring the systemic illegality and exploitation inherent in the settlement economy.
A critical indicator of political ideology is the consistency of crisis response. This audit applies the “Safe Harbor” test, comparing JLP’s reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022) against its reaction to the Gaza conflict (2023-2024). The disparity reveals a profound “Double Standard” that suggests political alignment rather than principled neutrality.
Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the John Lewis Partnership acted with speed and decisiveness. Within days of the invasion, JLP announced the removal of all products made in Russia.7 The boycott was total and uncompromising. It included high-profile items like Russian vodka and even obscure, low-volume items like pizza oven pellets.48 This indicated a willingness to scour the supply chain for any connection to the aggressor state.
The rhetoric employed by JLP leadership was equally strong. The Partnership issued statements of solidarity: “We stand united with the people of Ukraine”.48 The Chairman, Sharon White, publicly stated that “conflict strikes at the heart of our values”.49 This language framed the conflict not as a political dispute but as a moral imperative.
In addition to the commercial boycott, JLP engaged in significant philanthropy and symbolic support. The Partnership made immediate and publicized donations to the British Red Cross Ukraine Crisis Appeal.9 Staff were encouraged to wear blue and yellow ribbons, and stores displayed Ukrainian flags. This created a corporate environment where solidarity with Ukraine was not only permitted but expected and celebrated.
In stark contrast, the response to the conflict in Gaza has been characterized by silence, equivocation, and suppression.
Product Policy: There has been zero removal of Israeli products, even those from settlements illegal under international law. In fact, trade has continued as normal, with no review of suppliers linked to the conflict.50 The “total boycott” logic applied to Russia—where even minor economic links were severed—has been entirely absent regarding Israel.
Rhetoric: Statements from JLP regarding Gaza have been carefully calibrated to express vague concern for “all victims” or a “humanitarian crisis” without naming the aggressor or condemning the scale of civilian casualties in Gaza.52 There was no statement comparable to “standing united with the people of Palestine.” This linguistic asymmetry signals a reluctance to offend pro-Israel stakeholders or the UK government.
Internal Policing: Instead of solidarity, the response has been one of suppression. Staff have been warned against “political gestures” that might “offend customers”.9 The wearing of Palestinian symbols has been met with disciplinary action, a direct contradiction to the encouragement of Ukrainian symbols.
Justification: When challenged, JLP cites “complexity” and “non-political” stances. This contradicts the precedent set by Ukraine, where the geopolitical situation was treated as a moral absolute rather than a political complexity.49 The “Safe Harbor” test confirms that JLP treats Israel as a protected ally, while treating Russia as a pariah. This is not neutrality; it is an ideological choice to align with UK foreign policy, which supports Israel, rather than applying a consistent ethical framework to all conflicts. The “neutrality” policy is effectively a tool to silence criticism of Israel, whereas “solidarity” is the tool used to condemn Russia.
| Metric | Russia / Ukraine Response | Israel / Palestine Response | Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Product Policy | Total Boycott (Vodka, pellets, etc.) 8 | Status Quo (Continued sale of settlement dates/herbs) 50 | Evidence of ideological bias in ethical sourcing; settlements treated as legitimate. |
| Corporate Statement | “Stand united with Ukraine” 48 | Vague humanitarian sentiment; no condemnation of bombing.52 | Asymmetry in moral language; refusal to name the aggressor in Gaza context. |
| Staff Expression | Encouraged (Ribbons, flags). | Disciplined (Bans on “Free Palestine” badges).9 | Discriminatory application of “neutrality”; solidarity weaponized against one group. |
| Charitable Action | Immediate, high-profile corporate donation. | Quiet, often employee-led fundraising; restricted scope. | Deprioritization of Palestinian suffering relative to Ukrainian suffering. |
The internal treatment of employees serves as a microcosm of the company’s broader ideological stance. This section investigates the disciplinary actions taken against staff expressing solidarity with Palestine, specifically the case of Colleen Anthony, which highlights the weaponization of “neutrality” policies.
Colleen Anthony, a Waitrose employee of 19 years at the Brent Cross store, was dismissed in March 2024 following an incident involving a “Free Palestine” badge.9 The handling of this case provides a clear window into JLP’s internal governance ideology.
Sequence of Events:
Colleen Anthony wore a Palestine flag pin to work. Management instructed her to remove it, citing uniform policy. She complied. It is crucial to note that she had previously worn “Stand Up To Cancer” and LGBTQ+ pride badges without issue, establishing a precedent that “causes” were permitted.9 This indicates that the ban was specific to the Palestinian cause, not a blanket ban on badges.
A few days later, a customer overheard Anthony discussing her support for Palestine with a colleague. The customer became aggressive, shouting at Anthony to “educate herself.” Instead of supporting the employee against customer aggression (as per the “Kindness Rules” policy which mandates respect for staff 53), JLP suspended and then dismissed Anthony.
Rationale for Dismissal:
The dismissal was justified on the grounds that she “should not be talking about politics on the shop floor” and that her expression “could damage the brand.” The dismissing officer cited her failure to accept “personal responsibility” for causing the situation.9 This rationale explicitly places the “brand” above the employee’s rights and safety. It implies that the mere existence of pro-Palestinian sentiment is “damaging,” whereas other political expressions (like Ukraine support) are brand-enhancing.
Governance Implications:
The dismissal reveals that “neutrality” is enforced only when the political expression runs counter to the preferences of a specific customer demographic or political lobby. The failure to protect a long-serving employee from verbal abuse, instead victim-blaming the employee for “provoking” the abuse through her political beliefs, constitutes a failure of the duty of care. Furthermore, the discrepancy between this dismissal and the encouragement of Ukraine solidarity proves that the disciplinary policy is ideologically weighted. It is inconceivable that an employee would be dismissed for wearing a Ukraine ribbon and being shouted at by a pro-Russian customer.9
The audit finds a broader culture of fear regarding Palestine solidarity within JLP. Trade unions like GMB and USDAW have noted a rise in disciplinary threats against members wearing Palestine symbols in retail and NHS settings, with employers often citing “customer complaints” or “antisemitism” concerns driven by external lobby groups like UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI).54
It is highly probable that JLP’s strict enforcement in the Anthony case was influenced by fear of organized complaints from pro-Israel advocacy groups, which aggressively target businesses perceived as tolerating “anti-Israel” sentiment.55 The reference to “brand damage” in the dismissal letter strongly suggests that the company was reacting to external pressure or the anticipation of it. This creates a hostile environment for employees who support Palestinian rights, effectively silencing them through the threat of job loss.
The John Lewis Foundation funds various international projects. While the 2024 annual report highlights water and sanitation projects globally, there is a notable absence of significant aid directed towards Gaza or the West Bank, despite the catastrophic humanitarian needs there.57
The Waitrose Foundation invests in the communities where it sources produce, funding projects in South Africa, Ghana, and Kenya. However, despite sourcing significantly from Israel and the West Bank (dates, herbs), there is little evidence of Waitrose Foundation investment in Palestinian communities affected by the settlement agriculture they profit from. The economic benefits of their trade flow to the Israeli exporters (Hadiklaim, Mehadrin) and the settlement economy, not the Palestinian laborers.57 This lack of reinvestment in the Palestinian communities whose land and labor are exploited further deepens the complicity.
While direct data on the JLP Trust for Pensions’ specific equity holdings is confidential, standard index funds used by such trusts invariably include companies listed on the UN Human Rights Council’s database of companies complicit in settlements (e.g., Booking.com, Expedia, Motorola).59 Without a specific ethical screen for “Occupation Complicity”—which JLP does not appear to have—the pension fund is likely passively invested in the occupation. This means that the deferred wages of JLP partners are being invested in companies that sustain the illegal occupation, a fact that many partners may be unaware of and might object to.
The John Lewis Partnership presents a façade of “Strict Neutrality” that crumbles under forensic audit.
The “Safe Harbor” test provides the damning evidence: JLP proved in 2022 that it is capable of rapid, moral divestment when it aligns with state foreign policy (Ukraine). Its refusal to do so for Gaza proves that its inaction is a choice, not a necessity. It has chosen to remain a “Safe Harbor” for settlement goods.
Based on the evidence detailed in this report, Waitrose / John Lewis Partnership is assigned the following ranking:
Score: 6.8 / 10.0 (Complicit Commercial Actor)
Recommendation: For an investor or stakeholder seeking “Neutrality,” JLP is non-compliant. For a stakeholder seeking to avoid “Complicity in Apartheid,” JLP is high risk.
| Supplier | Brand Names | Settlement Link | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hadiklaim | Jordan River, King Solomon, Waitrose Own Brand | Operates packing houses in Tomer, Beit Ha’Arava, and Mehola settlements (Jordan Valley). Mislabels produce to avoid taxes. | 1 |
| Mehadrin | Jaffa, Top, Waitrose Own Brand | Israel’s largest exporter. Farms and facilities in Beqa’ot settlement. Sourced for citrus, avocados, and dates. Commingles settlement and Green Line produce. | 2 |
| Arava Export Growers | Arava, Waitrose Herbs | Sourced for fresh herbs (basil, thyme). Documented packing houses in Jordan Valley settlements. | 3 |
| Cause / Symbol | JLP Reaction | Policy Justification | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ukraine Flag/Ribbon | Endorsed. Corporate donation, public statements, staff encouraged to show support. | “Humanitarian crisis,” “Conflict strikes at our values.” | Unified corporate solidarity; brand enhancement. |
| LGBTQ+ Pride | Endorsed. Badges permitted, staff networks funded. | “Inclusion,” “Belonging.” | Protected characteristic support; brand enhancement. |
| Palestine Flag/Badge | Banned / Disciplined. Staff ordered to remove badges, subjected to disciplinary hearings, dismissed. | “Political neutrality,” “Offensive to customers,” “Brand damage.” | Suppression and dismissal (Case: Colleen Anthony); hostile environment. |
| Individual | Position | Affiliation / Action | Impact on Neutrality |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jason Tarry | Chairman (Incoming) | Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI). Attended delegations/events. | Negative. Aligns JLP leadership with a partisan pro-Israel lobby group. |
| Mark Price | Former MD / Deputy Chair | Trade Minister. Promoted UK-Israel trade; solidified Hadiklaim/Mehadrin ties. | Negative. Entrenched structural trade dependencies. |
| Sharon White | Former Chairman | Policy Enforcement. Oversaw the specific period of the “Neutrality” crackdown on Palestine. | Negative. Failed to apply the Ukraine standard to Gaza. |
The John Lewis Partnership often leverages its employee-owned status to project an image of democratic ethicality. However, the audit reveals that on high-stakes geopolitical issues, the “democracy” is managed from the top down. The Partnership Council, which represents employees, has not been empowered to challenge the Board’s stance on Israel trade. This suggests that the “democratic” structures are utilized for operational issues (pay, rotas) but are bypassed for strategic ideological alignment.20 The Board’s ability to override potential employee concerns about complicity in occupation reveals the limits of the partnership model when it conflicts with established commercial interests.
In the Colleen Anthony tribunal documents, JLP explicitly cited “damage the brand” as a reason for dismissal.9 This phrasing is crucial. It indicates that the company views Palestinian solidarity as “damaging,” whereas Ukrainian solidarity enhances the brand. This is a market-driven morality where “ethical” is defined by the preferences of the most affluent customer demographic, rather than objective human rights standards. It suggests that the brand’s value is tied to a perceived “neutrality” that is actually a defense of the status quo.
The alignment between JLP’s leadership and the Conservative Party’s trade agenda (via figures like Mark Price and Jason Tarry) creates a synergy where corporate strategy reinforces state foreign policy. JLP does not act as an independent ethical agent; it acts as a commercial partner to the UK government’s “Global Britain” strategy, which prioritizes trade deals with Israel over accountability for settlement expansion.15 This synergy insulates JLP from criticism, as it can claim to be following government guidance, while simultaneously lobbying the government to maintain that guidance.
As the geopolitical situation in the Middle East remains volatile, the risks associated with JLP’s current stance are likely to increase. The growing global movement for accountability and the legal precedents being set regarding trade with occupied territories will place increasing pressure on retailers to divest.
Strategic Recommendations for Stakeholders:
The John Lewis Partnership stands at a crossroads. It can continue to prioritize commercial expediency and political alignment, risking its reputation and complicity in human rights abuses, or it can live up to its stated values and take a principled stand against the occupation. The evidence from this audit suggests that without significant external pressure, it will choose the former.
