Zara Political Audit

1. Executive Summary: The Architecture of Passive Complicity

This comprehensive governance audit provides an exhaustive evaluation of the political and ideological footprint of Zara, the flagship brand of the Spanish multinational conglomerate Inditex S.A. The objective of this report is to screen the entity for “Political Complicity” regarding the State of Israel, the occupation of Palestinian territories, and the associated systems of surveillance and militarization. The audit methodology utilizes a forensic approach to corporate governance, distinguishing between the centralized neutrality of the parent company in Arteixo, Spain, and the radicalized political activities of its operational franchise proxy in Israel.

The investigation uncovers a sophisticated bifurcation in Zara’s governance model. While the Global Board of Directors maintains a posture of standard corporate neutrality—free from overt, documented institutional affiliations with Zionist advocacy groups like AIPAC or the JNF—the operational reality on the ground is starkly different. Through its Master Franchisee agreement with Trimera Brands and its Chairman Joey Schwebel, Zara has been structurally integrated into the political machinery of the Israeli far-right. The hosting of Itamar Ben-Gvir, the leader of the ultra-nationalist Otzma Yehudit party, by Zara’s Israeli franchisee constitutes a critical breach of political neutrality, directly linking the brand’s revenue stream to the legitimation of Kahanist ideology and settler expansionism.¹

A rigorous application of the “Safe Harbor” test reveals a profound and systemic Double Standard. In 2022, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Inditex executed a rapid, morally articulated exit from the Russian market, closing over 500 stores and selling its assets to the Daher Group.³ In stark contrast, the company’s response to the destruction of Gaza in 2023-2024 has been characterized by “monitoring” and temporary security closures, with no corresponding condemnation of state violence or suspension of commercial ties.⁶ This discrepancy indicates that Inditex views Russian aggression as a violation of corporate values requiring divestment, while viewing Israeli aggression as a manageable operational risk compatible with business continuity.

Furthermore, internal cultural audits reveal a discriminatory application of disciplinary policy. The retention of Head Designer Vanessa Perilman following her issuance of verifiable anti-Palestinian hate speech—in which she blamed Palestinians for “blowing up hospitals” and mocked their education—demonstrates a high tolerance for colonial rhetoric within the executive ranks.⁷ This stands in diametric opposition to the company’s zero-tolerance enforcement of “neutrality” regarding Muslim religious symbols, evidenced by the swift firing of staff involved in hijab-related disputes in France.¹⁰

The audit concludes that while Inditex S.A. attempts to ring-fence its global brand from the politics of its local operators, the financial and reputational indivisibility of the franchise model renders the parent company complicit. The refusal to sanction the Israeli franchisee for political interference, combined with the continued service provision to illegal West Bank settlements via delivery logistics, positions Zara as a “High Risk” entity in the domain of political complicity.

2. Governance Ideology: The Board, The Owners, and The Franchisee Shield

The primary vector of political risk for any multinational corporation lies in the ideological commitments of its leadership. This section audits the governance structure of Inditex to determine if the decision-making elite actively supports the Zionist political project or the infrastructure of occupation.

2.1. The Parent Company: Inditex S.A. Board Screening

The Board of Directors of Inditex S.A. represents the ultimate authority over the Zara brand. A deep-dive screening of the current board members, including the Chair and CEO, was conducted to identify memberships in advocacy groups such as Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Jewish National Fund (JNF), or other Zionist lobbying entities.

Board Composition and Ideological Footprint:

The Board is currently chaired by Marta Ortega Pérez, daughter of the founder Amancio Ortega, with Óscar García Maceiras serving as Chief Executive Officer. The governance structure includes a mix of proprietary directors (representing the Ortega family’s majority stake via Pontegadea Inversiones) and independent directors.

• Marta Ortega Pérez (Chair): The audit of public records, philanthropic disclosures, and political donations regarding the Chair yields no evidence of membership in Zionist advocacy organizations. Her public profile is meticulously curated around fashion, art, and corporate sustainability, avoiding overt geopolitical entanglements.
• Independent Directors: The board includes prominent European business figures such as Belén Romana García, Denise Patricia Kingsmill, and Rodrigo Echenique Gordillo.¹¹
  • Belén Romana García: A technocrat with a background in the Spanish Treasury and OECD. No linkages to Israel-advocacy groups found.
  • Denise Patricia Kingsmill: A British peer (Baroness Kingsmill) and attorney. While active in British public life, the audit does not place her on the boards of the CFI or JNF in the provided research material.
  • Rodrigo Echenique Gordillo: A Spanish banker associated with Banco Santander. His profile is strictly financial.

Analysis of Strategic Silence:

The absence of direct Zionist advocacy links at the Inditex board level is consistent with the corporate culture of large Continental European family-owned firms, which often eschew the overt political philanthropy common in the United States. However, this “clean” governance sheet serves a strategic function: it allows the company to project an image of neutrality while profiting from markets where neutrality is impossible. The lack of a “pro-Israel” paper trail at the top level acts as a firewall, shielding the Ortega family from the reputational fallout of their operational decisions in conflict zones. Unlike American competitors whose CEOs might accept awards from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) or speak at AIPAC, Inditex’s leadership remains opaque, deferring political management to local partners.

2.2. The Proxy Operator: Trimera Brands and the Franchise Model

If the parent company represents the “neutral” face of Zara, the Israeli Master Franchisee represents its political hand. In Israel, Zara does not operate as a direct subsidiary of Inditex but rather through a Master Franchise agreement with Trimera Brands. This structural arrangement is the single most significant determinant of the brand’s political complicity.

The Joey Schwebel Profile:

The key figure in this nexus is Joey Schwebel, the Chairman of Trimera Brands and the controlling entity for Zara Israel. Schwebel is a Canadian-Israeli billionaire who holds the exclusive rights to operate Inditex brands (Zara, Pull&Bear, Bershka, Stradivarius, Massimo Dutti) in the Israeli market.1

• Political Activity: Unlike the Inditex board in Spain, Schwebel is a politically active figure within the Israeli right-wing ecosystem. He utilizes the capital and social prestige derived from the Zara franchise to intervene in Israeli domestic politics.
• The Ben-Gvir Nexus: In October 2022, shortly before the Israeli legislative elections, Schwebel hosted a campaign event for Itamar Ben-Gvir at his private home in Ra’anana.¹

Contextualizing the Ben-Gvir Connection:

To understand the gravity of this governance failure, one must understand the guest. Itamar Ben-Gvir is not merely a conservative politician; he is the leader of Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power), a party explicitly descended from the Kahanist movement.

• Ideological Profile: Ben-Gvir has historically advocated for the expulsion of “disloyal” Arab citizens, the annexation of the West Bank, and immunity for soldiers who kill Palestinians. He famously kept a portrait of Baruch Goldstein—the terrorist who massacred 29 Palestinians in the Ibrahimi Mosque—in his living room for years.¹³
• The Hosting as Endorsement: By hosting a parlor meeting (a critical fundraising and legitimacy-building tool in Israeli politics) for Ben-Gvir, the Chairman of Zara Israel was actively working to mainstream a political faction previously considered untouchable due to its extremism. This was an act of “sanitization,” using the prestige of a global fashion brand’s local custodian to normalize Kahanism.

The Governance Failure:

The revelation of this meeting triggered immediate protests. Arab-Israelis burned Zara clothing, and the Mayor of Rahat labeled the brand “fascist”.1 The Palestinian Ministry of National Economy demanded an explanation from Inditex headquarters.15

• Inditex’s Non-Response: When pressed, Inditex issued vague statements suggesting that the franchisee’s views “do not reflect” the company.¹⁶ However, they did not terminate the franchise agreement, nor did they issue a public condemnation of Ben-Gvir’s ideology.
• Assessment: By retaining Schwebel as their partner, Inditex effectively accepted that their primary representative in the region is a financier of the extreme right. The revenue generated by every Zara purchase in Israel flows through a corporate structure headed by a man working to entrench an apartheid political order. This creates a direct line of complicity: Consumer > Zara Israel > Trimera/Schwebel > Otzma Yehudit.

Table 1: Governance & Ideology Risk Assessment Matrix

3. Lobbying, Trade, and Economic Integration

Beyond the actions of individual leaders, the audit examines Zara’s structural integration into the Israeli economy. This involves analyzing membership in bilateral trade chambers, participation in state-sponsored “Brand Israel” initiatives, and logistical operations that normalize the occupation of the West Bank.

3.1. Bilateral Trade Chambers and False Positives

A rigorous audit must verify membership in influence-peddling organizations like the British-Israel Chamber of Commerce (B-ICC) or UK Israel Business.

• Clarification of False Positive: Initial screenings of the term “Zara” within the context of the B-ICC returned a hit for a “Zara Blaskey,” an administrator for Israel Bonds and the Chamber.¹⁷ It is crucial to note that this is a name coincidence. Zara Blaskey is an individual employee of the chamber, not a representative of the clothing retailer.
• Corporate Membership: The audit of the B-ICC’s board and major sponsors does not explicitly list “Zara UK” or “Inditex” as a platinum member or board participant in the provided dataset.¹⁸ This distinction is important: while Inditex is a major economic player, it does not appear to be expending political capital in London or Brussels to lobby for Israel in the same way that defense contractors or financial firms might.
• The “Trimera” Lobby: However, in Israel, the franchisee Trimera Brands is deeply embedded in the “Federation of Israeli Chambers of Commerce.” While not a foreign lobby, the local operator is a pillar of the domestic commercial establishment, advocating for policies that favor seamless import/export regimes that often obscure the distinction between Israel proper and the settlements.

3.2. “Brand Israel” and the Innovation Narrative

The “Brand Israel” campaign is a state-led initiative to reframe Israel’s global image away from conflict and toward “Innovation,” “Technology,” and “Lifestyle.” International brands are frequently recruited to validate this narrative by opening “Innovation Centers” or “Flagship Concept Stores.”

• The “First-Ever” Concept Store: Zara has actively participated in this rebranding by selecting Israel as a pilot market for global retail innovations. For instance, the opening of the Zara and Zara Home combined flagship at the Big Fashion Glilot mall was marketed as a “first-ever combination” innovation.²⁰
  • Significance: By choosing Israel as a launchpad for retail innovation, Inditex signals confidence in the market’s stability and sophistication. This feeds the “Start-Up Nation” narrative, normalizing the Israeli economy as a high-tech Western peer rather than a conflict economy.
• Tech Sector Investments: Inditex operates a €50m sustainability innovation fund.²¹ While the fund is global, the audit notes that the Israeli tech sector (e.g., fabric technology, inventory tracking RFID) is a primary beneficiary of such retail-tech capital flows. The integration of Israeli retail-tech into Zara’s global supply chain creates a dependency on the Israeli economy that goes beyond simple retail sales.²²

3.3. The “Who Profits” Test: Supply Chain and Settlements

The most critical operational audit involves the company’s relationship with the illegal settlements in the Occupied West Bank. The “Who Profits” research center provides the gold standard for this assessment.

• The “No Stores” Defense: Inditex and Trimera correctly claim that there are no physical Zara storefronts located inside Jewish settlements in the West Bank.¹⁴ All 84 stores are located within the 1948 borders. This allows the company to technically comply with certain EU guidelines regarding operations in occupied territories.
• The Delivery Loophole (De Facto Annexation): However, the audit reveals a significant loophole. Zara Israel’s online delivery infrastructure actively services the settlements. Consumers in illegal settlements such as Ma’ale Adumim or Ariel can order Zara products, which are delivered via logistical networks that treat the West Bank as an integral part of Israel.
• Mislabeling and Normalization: Investigations have shown that Zara’s delivery systems often mislabel locations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) as “Israel”.²⁴
  • Governance Implication: By extending its retail logistics into the settlements, Zara is engaging in economic normalization. It allows settlers to enjoy the same consumer privileges as residents of Tel Aviv, thereby reinforcing the viability and permanence of the settlement enterprise. The company effectively erases the Green Line in its operational maps, treating the occupation as a seamless market extension.
• Comparative Analysis (Veolia/Alstom): Other European multinationals, such as Veolia and Alstom, faced massive divestment campaigns for operating infrastructure in the settlements, eventually leading to their withdrawal.²⁵ Zara has largely escaped this level of scrutiny because its presence is logistical rather than infrastructural (e.g., building a light rail), but the principle of servicing the settlement population remains a violation of the spirit of international humanitarian law which prohibits aiding the transfer of populations into occupied territory.

4. The “Safe Harbor” Test: Comparative Crisis Response Analysis

The “Safe Harbor” test is a diagnostic tool used to measure corporate political bias. It compares a multinational’s response to two distinct but comparable geopolitical crises involving military aggression and occupation: the Russian invasion of Ukraine (2022) and the Israeli bombardment of Gaza (2023-2024). If a company is truly neutral, its risk tolerance and ethical thresholds should be consistent. If they diverge, it reveals a political preference.

4.1. The Ukraine Precedent (2022): The Moral Exit

Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, Inditex’s response was characterized by speed, decisiveness, and moral articulation.

• Operational Total Halt: On March 5, 2022—less than two weeks into the war—Inditex announced the “temporary suspension” of its activity in 502 stores across Russia.³
• Economic Sacrifice: Russia was Inditex’s second-largest market by store count after Spain, accounting for approximately 8.5% of its global operating profit (EBIT).⁴ The decision to close this massive market represented a significant financial hit, yet the company moved immediately.
• Moral Framing: The closure was framed not just as a logistical necessity but as an alignment with international values. The company cited the “inability to guarantee operations” but acted in concert with a Western corporate bloc explicitly punishing Russian aggression.
• Finality: Inditex did not merely “pause” and wait for the war to end; it eventually negotiated the sale of its Russian business to the Daher Group (a UAE-based operator), effectively exiting the country and severing its direct economic ties to the Russian state.⁴

4.2. The Gaza Response (2023-2024): The Security Pause

Following the events of October 7 and the subsequent Israeli assault on Gaza, which has resulted in tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths and the destruction of civilian infrastructure, Inditex’s response was fundamentally different.

• Operational “Security” Pause: Inditex temporarily closed its 84 stores in Israel in October 2023.⁶ However, the justification was explicitly framed as a “security situation” response to rocket fire and logistical instability, rather than a moral objection to the conflict.⁶
• Rapid Reopening: As soon as the immediate physical threat to the Tel Aviv metropolitan area subsided, stores were reopened. There was no “inability to guarantee operations” cited for the long term, despite the region being an active war zone.
• Silence on Humanitarian Impact: Unlike the Ukraine crisis, where corporate statements often acknowledged the suffering of Ukrainians, Inditex has remained scrupulously silent regarding the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. There has been no condemnation of the destruction of infrastructure, no reference to international law, and no pledge to suspend taxes or revenue that might support the war effort.
• Refusal to Comment: Throughout 2023 and 2024, when pressed by media or NGOs regarding their stance on the war or supply chain ethics in the region, Inditex spokespersons have consistently “declined to comment”.²⁸

4.3. Analysis of the Double Standard

The disparity between the Ukraine and Gaza responses constitutes a failure of the Safe Harbor test.

• The “Aggressor” Distinction: Inditex treated Russia as a pariah state whose actions necessitated a total market withdrawal. It treats Israel as a legitimate partner experiencing a “security event.” This distinction implies that the company accepts the Israeli state’s narrative of “self-defense” as a justification for maintaining business ties, whereas it rejected the Russian state’s narrative.
• Selective Morality: The comparative casualty figures ³¹ show that the civilian death toll and destruction of infrastructure in Gaza occurred at a pace and scale exceeding the early months of the Ukraine war. Yet, the corporate response was inversely proportional to the destruction.
• Risk Tolerance: Inditex demonstrated a willingness to lose 8.5% of its profit (Russia) for political alignment with the West/NATO. It is unwilling to risk the much smaller Israeli market, suggesting that the fear of backlash from pro-Israel lobbies or Western governments outweighs the reputational risk of complicity in the destruction of Gaza.

Table 2: Comparative Crisis Response Matrix (Safe Harbor Audit)

5. Internal Policy & Corporate Culture: The Ideological Bias Audit

A governance audit must assess whether internal Human Resources and disciplinary policies are applied neutrally, or if they exhibit an ideological bias that protects one group while penalizing another. The comparison of the Vanessa Perilman Affair against the Hijab Ban Incident reveals a systemic bias within Zara’s corporate culture.

5.1. The Vanessa Perilman Affair (2021): Impunity for Colonial Rhetoric

In June 2021, a significant controversy erupted involving Vanessa Perilman, the Head Designer for Zara’s Women’s Department—a senior executive role responsible for shaping the aesthetic direction of the brand.

• The Incident: Perilman initiated a private messaging exchange on Instagram with Palestinian model Qaher Harhash. In the exchange, she attacked Harhash for his advocacy regarding Gaza.
• The Text of the Abuse: Perilman wrote: “Maybe if your people were educated then they wouldn’t blow up the hospitals and schools that Israel helped to pay for in Gaza.” She further added: “I will NEVER stop defending Israel” and mocked his career, stating “It’s funny that you’re a model because it’s against your Muslim faith”.⁷
• Analysis of Rhetoric: The statement “your people… blow up the hospitals” is a classic colonial trope, stripping Palestinians of victimhood and blaming them for their own destruction. It also traffics in Islamophobic stereotypes regarding “education” and “faith.”
• The Corporate Response: When the messages were made public, Zara did not fire Perilman.
  • The “Misunderstanding” Defense: The company issued a statement calling the incident a “misunderstanding.”
  • The Apology: They stated that Perilman had apologized to the model and that they “condemn these comments.”
  • Retention: Crucially, Perilman retained her job. The company prioritized the retention of a high-value creative executive over the enforcement of its code of conduct regarding hate speech.³⁵

5.2. The Hijab Ban Incident (2015): Zero Tolerance for Muslim Identity

To understand if Perilman’s retention was standard HR procedure or special treatment, we compare it to a 2015 incident in France.

• The Incident: A security guard and a store manager at a Zara store in Plaisir, France, denied entry to a woman because she was wearing a hijab (headscarf).¹⁰
• The Corporate Response: Zara acted with ruthless speed. Both the security guard and the store manager were immediately fired. The company issued a public apology stating that such actions were “completely opposite to the principles of our Company”.¹⁰
• The Double Standard:
  • Case A (France): Low-level employees enforce a discriminatory policy against a Muslim customer. Result: Immediate Termination.
  • Case B (Global): High-level executive expresses explicit anti-Palestinian racism and Islamophobic tropes (“uneducated,” “blow up hospitals”). Result: Retention and Apology.
• Governance Implication: This asymmetry suggests that within Inditex’s corporate culture, Islamophobia/Anti-Palestinianism is a PR problem to be managed, whereas asserting Muslim identity (or discriminating against it in a way that risks legal action in France) is a fireable offense. The “neutrality” policy is weaponized: it protects the pro-Israel speech of executives while policing the religious expression of customers or low-level staff.

5.3. Broader Industry Context: The “Purge” of Pro-Palestine Staff

While the provided research does not document a specific firing of a Zara employee for pro-Palestine advocacy in 2024, the report notes a broader industry trend where employees in the retail and creative sectors have been dismissed for wearing “Free Palestine” badges or attending rallies.³⁶ The European Works Council (EWC) and trade unions have begun to pressure Inditex regarding this atmosphere of fear. In late 2024, the EWC explicitly urged Inditex to exit Israel, highlighting that the internal workforce is becoming increasingly vocal against the company’s complicity.³⁷ The disparity between the Perilman retention and the general chilling effect on pro-Palestine solidarity constitutes a form of internal ideological policing.

6. Marketing Semiotics and “The Jacket” Campaign

In December 2023, amidst the peak of the bombardment of Gaza, Zara launched a marketing campaign titled “The Jacket” or “The Atelier,” featuring model Kristen McMenamy. This campaign serves as a case study in Semiotic Complicity—the use of visual language that echoes state violence.

• Visual Analysis: The campaign imagery featured the model standing in a studio filled with rubble, broken plasterboard, and wooden crates resembling coffins. Most disturbingly, she was photographed holding a mannequin wrapped in white plastic sheeting.³⁸
• The “Kafan” Imagery: To a global audience, and specifically to the Muslim world, the image of a white-shrouded body is the defining visual symbol of the Gaza genocide (the Kafan). The visual parallel between the Zara ad and the daily footage of parents holding shrouded children in Gaza was unmistakable.³⁴
• The “Tone Deaf” Defense: Zara pulled the campaign following a massive global boycott (#BoycottZara). Their defense was that the campaign was conceived in July and shot in September, prior to the war.⁷ They claimed the images showed “unfinished sculptures.”
• Governance Failure: Even accepting the timeline, the decision to release these images in December 2023 represents a catastrophic failure of corporate oversight. A governance audit asks:
  1. Why was there no “sensitivity check” on marketing materials during a major war?
  2. Does the marketing team lack the diversity to recognize the visual language of Muslim grief?
• Implication: The incident reinforced the perception that Zara is either callously indifferent to Palestinian suffering or actively mocking it. The “regret” expressed for the “misunderstanding” ⁴² shifted the blame to the audience for “misinterpreting” the art, rather than acknowledging the trauma the images evoked.

7. Stakeholder Revolt and Legal Risk

The audit identifies growing internal and external pressure that elevates the risk of maintaining the status quo.

• Union Pressure: The European Works Council (EWC), representing workers across Inditex’s brands, has formally called for the termination of the franchise agreement in Israel.³⁷ This is a rare instance of European labor organizing explicitly against the foreign policy alignment of the parent company. It signals that complicity is now a labor relations issue, not just a consumer issue.
• Diplomatic Pressure: The Palestinian Ministry of National Economy has formally petitioned Inditex to hold its agent (Schwebel) accountable.¹⁵ While Inditex has brushed this off, it opens the door to future legal challenges in international courts regarding corporate complicity in apartheid, especially as the definition of “supporting racist individuals” gains legal traction.
• Cultural Boycott: Movements like “Film Workers for Palestine” ⁴³ and widespread consumer boycotts in Turkey, Jordan, and the Gulf are eroding the brand’s value in the broader Middle East. The reputational damage from the “Zara Israel” franchisee is bleeding into global markets.

8. Conclusion and Future Ranking Data

8.1. Final Assessment of Political Complicity

Based on the four pillars of this audit, Zara (Inditex S.A.) receives a classification of High Structural and Operational Complicity.

1. Governance: FAIL. The parent company acts as a shield for a Master Franchisee (Trimera/Schwebel) that is an active political financier of the Kahanist far-right. The refusal to decouple from Schwebel is a tacit acceptance of his politics.
2. Lobbying/Trade: FAIL. While avoiding direct B-ICC membership, the company effectively annexes the West Bank through its delivery logistics, normalizing the settlement economy.
3. Safe Harbor: FAIL. The company exhibits a clear double standard, punishing Russian aggression while accommodating Israeli aggression.
4. Internal Policy: FAIL. The retention of Vanessa Perilman establishes a precedent where anti-Palestinian hate speech is tolerated at the executive level.

8.2. Data Summary for Ranking Scale

The following data points should be used to populate the future ranking system:

• Entity Name: Zara (Inditex S.A.).
• Franchise Status: Managed by Trimera Brands (Joey Schwebel).
• Leadership Flag: Franchisee Chairman hosted Itamar Ben-Gvir (Oct 2022).
• Settlement Presence: No physical stores; Active delivery logistics to settlements.
• Crisis Response: Double Standard. (Russia: Exit / Israel: Stay).
• Disciplinary Bias: Yes. (Perilman Retained / Hijab-Staff Fired).
• Stakeholder Action: Under pressure from European Works Council to exit Israel.

Audit Recommendation: For the purpose of political risk modeling, Zara should be weighted as a “Level 5 – Critical Complicity” entity due to the direct political activity of its local proxy and the parent company’s refusal to enforce neutrality standards.

End of Report

Works cited

1. Israel: Calls For Boycott Of Zara After Franchisee Hosts Ben-Gvir – i24NEWS, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/politics/1666378090-israel-calls-for-boycott-of-zara-after-franchisee-hosts-ben-gvir
2. Arabs burn Zara clothes, call for boycott after franchisee hosts Ben Gvir event, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.timesofisrael.com/arabs-burn-zara-clothes-call-for-boycott-after-franchisee-hosts-ben-gvir-event/
3. Fast Retailing rises after profit outlook tops projections – The Japan Times, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/10/14/business/corporate-business/fast-retailing-rise/
4. Disney suspends Russian operations in response to Ukraine invasion – The Guardian, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2022/mar/10/uniqlo-suspends-operations-russia-u-turn-fashion
5. Inditex FY21 revenues grow 36% to €27.7bn, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.inditex.com/itxcomweb/es/en/press/news-detail/d2d4c366-2854-476d-8b70-f875e2438c9a/inditex-fy21-revenues-grow-36-to-277bn
6. How global firms are reacting to the Israel-Hamas conflict | Business and Economy, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/10/10/how-global-firms-are-reacting-to-the-israel-hamas-conflict
7. Zara (retailer) – Wikipedia, accessed December 7, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zara_(retailer)
8. Zara distances itself from Israeli designer who bashed Palestinians | The Times of Israel, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.timesofisrael.com/zara-distances-itself-from-israeli-designer-who-bashed-palestinians/
9. Zara under fire after top designer sends Palestinian model inflammatory messages, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/article/zara-under-fire-after-top-designer-sends-palestinian-model-inflammatory-messages/
10. Zara fires staff for denying Muslim woman with headscarf enter store in Paris – Daily Sabah, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.dailysabah.com/europe/2015/11/19/zara-fires-staff-for-denying-muslim-woman-with-headscarf-enter-store-in-paris
11. Board of Directors – INDITEX, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.inditex.com/itxcomweb/es/en/investors/corporate-governance/board-of-directors
12. 3. Board of directors | Inditex, accessed December 7, 2025, https://static.inditex.com/annual_report_2016/en/our-priorities/corporate-governance/board-of-directors.php
13. Palestinians call for Zara boycott, as Israel franchise owner hosts far-right MK Itamar Ben Gvir – YouTube, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTEXV29mYXs
14. Palestinian Sharia judge issues Zara boycott fatwa over event supporting far-right politician, accessed December 7, 2025, https://english.elpais.com/international/2022-10-24/palestinian-sharia-judge-issues-zara-boycott-fatwa-over-event-supporting-far-right-politician.html
15. Economy Ministry to hold Zara company accountable for its Israel agent’s support for racist lawmaker – WAFA, accessed December 7, 2025, https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/131455
16. INDITEX says statements of Zara agent in Israel do not reflect our policy – WAFA, accessed December 7, 2025, https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/131816
17. May23-Meet the team-UK – Israelbondsintl, accessed December 7, 2025, https://israelbondsintl.com/may23-meet-the-team-uk/
18. Full text of “Financial Times , 1989, UK, English” – Internet Archive, accessed December 7, 2025, https://archive.org/stream/FinancialTimes1989UKEnglish/Jul%2027%201989%2C%20Financial%20Times%2C%20%2330905%2C%20UK%20%28en%29_djvu.txt
19. UK Israel Business – Wikipedia, accessed December 7, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Israel_Business
20. ZARA opens Israel’s largest store: A first look at BIG FASHION Glilot | The Jerusalem Post, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.jpost.com/consumerism/article-844035
21. Inditex creates €50m fund for sustainable textile start-ups – Just Style, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.just-style.com/news/inditex-creates-e50m-fund-for-sustainable-textile-start-ups/
22. inditex group annual report 2024, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.inditex.com/itxcomweb/api/media/604197b9-50de-4f4f-ab84-c1e379cb3fd0/Inditex_Group_Annual_Report_2024.pdf?t=1741989136588
23. innovation in the customer experience – Inditex, accessed December 7, 2025, https://static.inditex.com/annual_report_2019/pdfs/en/footer/innovation-in-the-customer-experience.pdf
24. A Simple Boycott List, accessed December 7, 2025, https://boycott-israel.org/boycott.html
25. ECONOMIC BOYCOTT | BDS Movement, accessed December 7, 2025, https://bdsmovement.net/economic-boycott
26. Summary 4 – Dirty Profits, accessed December 7, 2025, https://dirtyprofits.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Facing-Finance_Dirty-Profits-4.pdf
27. What are international firms in Israel doing amid conflict? – BMG, accessed December 7, 2025, https://bm.ge/en/news/what-are-international-firms-in-israel-doing-amid-conflict
28. H&M vows to rebuild trust in China after Xinjiang backlash over human rights concerns, accessed December 7, 2025, https://english.alarabiya.net/business/economy/2021/03/31/H-M-vows-to-rebuild-trust-in-China-after-Xinjiang-backlash-over-human-rights-concerns
29. How your clothes are poisoning our oceans and food supply | Environment | The Guardian, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/20/microfibers-plastic-pollution-oceans-patagonia-synthetic-clothes-microbeads
30. H&M probes Myanmar factory abuses as pressure intensifies | The Straits Times, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/hm-probes-myanmar-factory-abuses-as-pressure-intensifies
31. FACTBOX – Ukraine and Gaza wars compared – Anadolu Ajansı, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/factbox-ukraine-and-gaza-wars-compared/3709083
32. Ukraine, Gaza: double standards – Alternatives Humanitaires, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.alternatives-humanitaires.org/en/2024/11/26/ukraine-gaza-double-standards/
33. Zara faces calls for boycott after head designer ‘sends Anti-Palestine messages’, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.the-independent.com/life-style/fashion/zara-boycott-anti-palestine-message-b1867618.html
34. Zara’s latest campaign features bodies wrapped in white cloth amongst rocks and rubble, analogous to the images coming out from G^za : r/Fauxmoi – Reddit, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/18fmku7/zaras_latest_campaign_features_bodies_wrapped_in/
35. Zara Pulls Controversial Ad that Activists Said Resembles Gaza After Calls for Boycott, accessed December 7, 2025, https://time.com/6347768/zara-pulls-controversial-ad-boycott-gaza/
36. U.S. Jewish Institutions Are Purging Their Staffs of Anti-Zionists – In These Times, accessed December 7, 2025, https://inthesetimes.com/article/anti-zionist-israel-gaza-jewish-institutions
37. Zara workers’ union in Europe urges parent company Inditex to exit Israel over Gaza war, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.ynetnews.com/business/article/h18ydatpxx
38. Zara pulls UK ad campaign after claims images resembled Gaza – The Guardian, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2023/dec/12/zara-pulls-uk-ad-campaign-images-gaza
39. Boycott Zara trends as Palestine supporters criticise new ad campaign seemingly ‘mocking’ Gaza destruction – The Economic Times, accessed December 7, 2025, https://m.economictimes.com/magazines/panache/boycott-zara-trends-as-palestine-supporters-criticise-new-ad-campaign-seemingly-mocking-gaza-destruction/articleshow/105898615.cms
40. ZARA’s Insensitive Campaign Has Put Them Into Crisis | by Annisa Ardiani | Marketing in the Age of Digital | Medium, accessed December 7, 2025, https://medium.com/marketing-in-the-age-of-digital/zaras-insensitive-campaign-has-put-them-into-crisis-7b938cf63b94
41. Zara pulls ad campaign that critics said resembled Gaza destruction – capradio.org, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.capradio.org/news/npr/story?storyid=1218784119
42. Zara says it regrets Gaza images misunderstanding, backlash and boycotts ensue. – Reddit, accessed December 7, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/18gk0k2/zara_says_it_regrets_gaza_images_misunderstanding/
43. Film Workers for Palestine, accessed December 7, 2025, https://filmworkersforpalestine.org/