UN Adds 61 Companies to Israeli Settlements Database
The UN human rights office has added 61 companies to its database of firms linked to Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank over alleged Palestinian human rights violations.
The update brings the total to 214 companies based in 11 countries, according to the latest publication The Guardian. Most are Israeli. Settlements here means Israeli civilian communities built in territory Israel has occupied since 1967. Five of the 158 companies listed last year were removed.
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the UN's lead rights agency, said it screened 126 enterprises for this cycle OHCHR. Companies were told about their inclusion in advance and given a right of reply. That step is central to how the office defends its method.
The update was published on 25 September 2026 as UN document A/HRC/63/20 OHCHR. The database was first published in 2020 after a vote by the UN Human Rights Council, the 47-member body that directs UN rights inquiries. Firms added this time work in energy, food, transport and agriculture Reuters.
UN human rights chief Volker Türk said the report reminds companies of their human rights responsibilities and the due diligence, or careful checking for harm, expected of them. Israel said it categorically rejects the publication of the database.
The broader context here is procedural persistence. The Human Rights Council required regular review, and OHCHR has kept to that schedule despite sustained political opposition. Additions and removals in the same cycle fit that design. The list shifts as business activity shifts or as companies respond.
Looking at what this means for listed firms, the direct pressure is reputational and compliance-related rather than judicial. Multinationals across jurisdictions track such databases for risk screening, much as banks run background checks, and for investor questions and internal human rights reviews. Inclusion alone carries no court penalty, but it can prompt legal review inside companies and questions from shareholders.
In my view, the diplomatic signal matters as much as the corporate one. For supporters of the mechanism, keeping the database shows continued institutional attention to settlement-related business. For Israel and its partners, rejection is equally consistent. Neither position has shifted, and the update does not settle that divide. It keeps the issue on the Council agenda and preserves a reference that courts, advocacy groups and investors can cite in their own decisions.
