How Denmark lets Maersk sail under the radar

You may not have heard of Maersk by name, but many of the everyday goods you use have likely moved through its global shipping network. Denmark’s most celebrated company, responsible for more than one tenth of the national economy, also has a long record of war profiteering, climate harm and labor abuse that contradicts claims of corporate benevolence.

Established in 1904, Maersk is the second largest container shipping company in the world and a pillar of Danish economy with a revenue of 44 billion euros in 2024. The Maersk Foundation funds social, scientific and cultural projects nationally, aiming to “give back to society”. For these reasons, Maersk has become a crown jewel of Denmark.

Maersk’s saintly image is despite its past. DISA, a subsidiary of Maersk, has a history of selling weapons and ammunition to Nazi Germany, the Colombian army during the civil war, La Violencia, and other totalitarian regimes worldwide. Maersk seems on the surface to have come a long way since then with humanitarian initiatives and environmental goals, but these corporate tactics are hiding serious underlying issues.

Reports by DanWatch and the Palestinian Youth Movement have documented that Maersk has been responsible for thousands of shipments of military cargo such as weapons systems and parts for constructing F-35 flyer jets to the Israeli military while exporting goods from illegal Israeli settlements. The F-35 jets have played a key role in Israel’s attacks on Gaza in the last years. Between 2020 and 2024, Maersk facilitated at least 1,009 shipments totaling more than 15.1 million lbs of military goods tied to global F-35 supply chains.

Maersk has denied the allegations, accusing activists of creating lies about the company’s role in the military cargo supply chain. But this is simply because Maersk distinguishes “weapons” from “weapons systems”. One shareholder at Maersk brought to vote at a general assembly in March a proposal for the company to end the complicity in the military cargo supply chain. The proposal was heavily down-voted, contradictory to Møller-Mærsk own yearly report calling for more focus on human rights in times of war conflicts. Though the Danish law clearly states the unlawfulness of supplying weapons to states committing war crimes, Maersk has been required no accountability and this is no isolated instance.

While Maersk declared a goal to be carbon-neutral by 2050, the company’s CO2 emissions have increased since 2021, amounting to 44% of Denmark’s total emissions. It is worth noting that from 1962 until the sale in 2018, A.P. Møller-Mærsk group owned an oil company producing up to 550.000 barrels of oil per day with activities worldwide.

These failures of responsibility do not end at the company’s carbon footprint neither. In 2022, Maersk had to fire five employees after accusations of rape against a 19 year old female cadet on board one of their ships. A cook on board a Maersk ship received numerous sexually offensive text messages from her captain and was encouraged by the company to talk it out between the two of them. Following these cases, Maersk initiated a larger investigation revealing many cases of offense, though they refuse to disclose details from the report. Earlier this year, documents revealed that a previous sex offender was rehired on one of Maersk’s ships.

Contributing to the positive perception of the Maersk Group is the Copenhagen Opera House, which they donated in 2001. At a cost of 336 million euros, it is the most expensive opera ever built and therefore seemingly a generous gift. It ignited controversy when it was discovered that the total cost of the opera was tax deductible, effectively meaning that the 390 million was paid by state funds. Meanwhile, the company paid just 3% taxes last year in a country where the company tax lays at 22%.

Still, Maersk is praised both globally within executive circles and nationally for it’s impressive accomplishments, with no consequences besides the occasional news articles highlighting the aforementioned affairs. Denmark has chosen to protect it’s golden child rather than regulate like they would any other multinational corporation.

Enforcing the law against transport of weapons and military components is only the first step for the Danish government. They must also enforce transparency across Maersk’s supply chains, implement mandatory human-rights due diligence and strengthen labor protections aboard ships. It is crucial to address Maersk’s climate impact with binding targets rather than voluntary promises. Lastly, the government must close the loophole allowing a company at this scale to contribute far less in taxes than it should. Maersk cannot be allowed to choose which rules apply to it.

While we call on the Danish government to act, there are still other measures we can take as civilians. Boycotting is usually an effective way to cut ties with corporations, but it can be near impossible to know what goods where shipped by Maersk or to avoid such a large number of products surrounding us every day.

The Mask Off Maersk campaign encourages to write e-mails to actors in the supply chains. This strategy has shown tangible results. When masses of people wrote letters and e-mails to the Spanish government, informing them about the use of Spanish ports as part of the route from F-35 manufacturers in the US to Israel, combined with the powerful strikes of dock workers, it resulted in a (yet to be executed) promise from Spain to impose a total arms embargo on Israel. Similarities have occurred in Moroccan ports after a powerful labor union called for a strike.

It is time we collectively open our eyes to mega corporations acting in discrepancy with the many institutions of legislation and human rights that underpin our society. Meanwhile others face the consequences of climate change and the weapons industry. Maersk is not the only corporation operating this way, but it is a prime example of the cognitive dissonance that blinds us to complicity and shields responsibility from being taken.