Bershka belongs to the Spanish group Inditex, founded by Amancio Ortega and based in Arteijo, Galicia. The brand, created in 1998, has no capital link with Israel. The confusion arises from the amalgamation of Inditex’s commercial presence in the Israeli market and a supposed Israeli origin or affiliation of its brands.
Inditex and commercial presence in Israel: what this means in practice
Inditex operates stores in over a hundred markets worldwide. Israel is one of these markets, alongside dozens of other countries. Bershka is neither founded nor owned by Israeli capital: the entire shareholder structure traces back to the Inditex group, listed on the Madrid Stock Exchange.
Recommended read : The legendary stages of cycling: between myth and performance
The distinction between “selling in a country” and “belonging to that country” remains poorly understood in online discussions. When an article or a social media post claims that Bershka “supports Israel,” it generally refers to the fact that Inditex maintains a commercial activity there, not to a direct financial involvement in the country’s defense economy or politics.
To delve deeper into the issue of Bershka boycott or support for Israel, it is essential to clearly distinguish these two levels of interpretation.
Read also : How Computing Shapes the Future of Businesses and Communities
BDS Campaigns: why Bershka appears on boycott lists
The BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) targets companies operating in Israel or contributing to the occupation of Palestinian territories. The campaigns primarily target Zara, Inditex’s flagship brand, due to its visibility and premium positioning.
Bershka appears on these lists by extension, as a subsidiary of the same group. No specific BDS campaign targets Bershka for actions of its own, distinct from those attributed to Inditex as a whole.
What the BDS movement accuses Inditex of
The criticisms focus on the maintenance of Zara stores in Tel Aviv during periods of conflict and on promotional partnerships deemed problematic. The BDS Movement website has issued an explicit call for a boycott of Zara, accusing the brand of “whitewashing” the political situation through its commercial presence.
- The commercial expansion in Israel is perceived as a form of economic normalization of the conflict
- Communication partnerships with controversial figures fuel the criticism
- The absence of a public stance from Inditex on the issue reinforces activists’ distrust
This lack of official communication is a factor in itself. The group has not issued any statements directly addressing the accusations related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, preferring a strategy of silence on these political issues.
Boycotting Bershka: real scope and limits of the approach
An individual consumer boycott has more symbolic than financial effect. Inditex generates the vast majority of its revenue in Europe, and the Israeli market represents a marginal share of its overall income.
The real leverage of the boycott lies in media and reputational pressure. When thousands of social media posts associate Zara or Bershka with support for the occupation, it weighs on the brand image, even if the accounting impact remains limited.
What changes (and does not change) by not buying from Bershka
Not buying from Bershka deprives the group of a negligible amount in the scale of its global operations. The mass effect on social media matters more than the average individual unspent basket.
The alternatives proposed by boycott sites (Koton, LC Waikiki, local brands) themselves raise questions about traceability and working conditions. Boycotting a brand for geopolitical reasons without examining the social and environmental practices of the replacement brand creates an ethical blind spot.
Bershka and fast fashion: the geopolitical boycott masks other issues
The focus on the supposed link between Bershka and Israel eclipses long-documented issues. The fast fashion industry is the second most polluting in the world, and Inditex, despite its stated commitments, remains a major player in this large-scale production model.
The manufacturing conditions in subcontracting countries, the management of textile waste, the planned obsolescence of collections: these subjects directly concern Bershka, regardless of any geopolitical considerations.
- The fast fashion model relies on rapid renewal cycles that generate considerable volumes of textile waste
- Social audits in Inditex’s subcontracting chains do not cover all lower-tier suppliers
- The used clothing collection programs implemented by the group only offset a marginal fraction of new production
The question “should we boycott Bershka” becomes more relevant when it incorporates the entire economic model of the brand, not just its geographical presence in a contested market.
Reducing the debate to the Israeli prism prevents examining Inditex’s overall business practices. The informed consumer judges on multiple simultaneous criteria, whether geopolitical, environmental, or social, rather than on a single axis of interpretation.