A shareholder call for Maersk to tighten oversight of shipments linked to Israel’s military supply chain was rejected at the company’s annual general meeting, following a tense discussion over legal, regulatory and reputational risk.
The issue was raised by human rights campaign group Ekõ, which has been urging corporations to strengthen due diligence in conflict-related supply chains. At Maersk’s AGM on 25 March, some shareholders again questioned whether the Danish shipping group faces growing exposure through the transport of military-related cargo connected to Israel.
Ekõ argued that Maersk’s current policy — which prohibits the shipment of weapons or ammunition into active conflict zones — may not go far enough, particularly where dual-use components, logistics services and other categories of military-related cargo are concerned.
Campaigners say that since the 2025 AGM, new public documentation and investigative reporting have increased concern that the company’s exposure extends beyond the narrower definition of weapons and ammunition. They argue investors should have access to clearer disclosure around how due diligence is triggered, governed and assessed in practice.
Maen Hammad, a campaigner at Ekõ, said Maersk is widely seen as an industry leader and claimed there is an inconsistency in how the company approaches human rights-related risk. He argued that while Maersk insists its due diligence framework is effective, it is resisting even what campaigners describe as basic oversight measures.
Maersk maintains that it operates in full compliance with applicable laws and relevant international standards. Speaking at the AGM, chief executive Vincent Clerc said the company’s approach is reflected in its sustainability reporting and complies with the disclosure requirements of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive.
The company also reiterated that it does not ship weapons or ammunition to active conflict zones and says it applies heightened due diligence for cargo moving to Israel and Gaza. Maersk further stated that it does not ship F-35 aircraft parts or fully assembled aircraft back to Israel, although it acknowledges that parts manufactured in Israel move to 18 other countries.
Through its US subsidiary Maersk Line Limited, the company participates in the US government’s Maritime Security Program. Maersk said that any shipment of weapons or ammunition from the US government to Israel would require a Transportation Plan approved by the US authorities, and stated that no such plan has ever been submitted by Maersk Line, which it says confirms that the subsidiary has not carried classified or sensitive equipment under that programme.
The debate nevertheless continues to intensify. Ekõ and other campaigners point to growing concern from investors, UN experts and legal bodies over corporate exposure to military-related trade linked to Israel. The issue has also gained visibility following reporting from UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who named Maersk among corporations allegedly implicated in supply chains connected to the occupied Palestinian territory.
Campaigners also cite a report by the Palestinian Youth Movement published in November 2024, which documented 2,110 shipments on Maersk vessels during the year from September 2023 that it says were linked to the Israeli military. According to that research, the shipments included armoured vehicles, weapons, components and other military-related goods valued at just under $1bn.
The report also raised questions about the use of “diplomatic cargo” classifications and blank product descriptions on certain shipments, suggesting these mechanisms may obscure the true nature of some cargo. Maersk has described the allegations as old news, but has not disputed the continued transport of some military-related cargo by its US subsidiary.
At the AGM, Clerc said Maersk has strengthened its cargo review and acceptance procedures for Israel-Hamas related trade flows and for conflict zones more generally, adding that stricter criteria have applied since the escalation of the conflict.
The shareholder proposal failed, but the discussion made clear that scrutiny of Maersk’s due diligence framework — and of shipping companies’ broader role in conflict-related supply chains — is unlikely to fade.
