Maybelline faces boycott calls over L’Oréal’s ties to ‘Israel’

• L’Oréal, the parent company of Maybelline New York, faces boycott calls over its commercial operations, manufacturing facilities, and research ties in ‘Israel’.
• Critics have raised concerns about a factory built on land belonging to a displaced Palestinian village, as well as the use of Dead Sea minerals and the company’s historical expansion in ‘Israel’.

French cosmetics giant L’Oréal, the parent company of Maybelline New York, is facing renewed scrutiny over its commercial operations, manufacturing facilities, and institutional ties in ‘Israel’, as boycott campaigns target multinational corporations operating in the country.

Maybelline, one of L’Oréal’s best-known mass-market makeup brands, has become a focus of consumer criticism because of its parent company’s business activities and investments. Advocacy groups and boycott campaigners argue that these ties raise questions about corporate accountability, Palestinian displacement, and the exploitation of natural resources.

Factory built on land belonging to a displaced Palestinian village
One of the main points of criticism is L’Oréal’s manufacturing facility in Migdal HaEmek, in the Galilee region of northern ‘Israel’.

The town was established in 1952 on land belonging to al-Mujaydil, a Palestinian village whose residents were displaced during the events surrounding the establishment of ‘Israel’ in 1948.

L’Oréal expanded its manufacturing operations in the area during the 1990s, establishing a production facility for cosmetics and personal care products.

Palestinian advocacy groups have cited the factory’s location as part of their criticism of the company’s operations, arguing that businesses should be held accountable for their presence on land associated with the displacement of Palestinian communities.

The controversy forms part of broader debates over Palestinian property rights, the consequences of the 1948 displacement, and the responsibilities of companies operating in areas affected by that history.

Concerns over Dead Sea resources
L’Oréal has also faced criticism over the sourcing of minerals and other ingredients from the Dead Sea region.

Boycott campaigners and advocacy networks have raised concerns about the commercial use of Dead Sea mud and salts, particularly where extraction involves resources from occupied territory.

They argue that the exploitation of natural resources in occupied territory raises questions under international law, including rules governing an occupying power’s use of resources and the protection of the rights of the occupied population.

However, the legality of a specific extraction operation depends on its location, the parties involved, and the applicable legal framework. The sourcing of Dead Sea ingredients alone does not establish that every product manufactured by L’Oréal involves resources extracted from occupied territory.

L’Oréal’s expansion in ‘Israel’
L’Oréal’s commercial presence in ‘Israel’ expanded during the 1990s, following a period of scrutiny over its compliance with the Arab League boycott.

The company subsequently increased its local manufacturing and distribution activities and developed commercial relationships in the country.

Its activities have also drawn attention to academic and scientific partnerships, including reported relationships with ‘Israeli’ research institutions.

Critics argue that these connections contribute to the company’s integration into the country’s commercial and research sectors. Assessing individual partnerships, however, requires examining their specific terms, funding arrangements, and activities.

The company’s expansion has become part of wider boycott campaigns seeking to pressure international businesses over their relationships with ‘Israel’.

Why Maybelline is being targeted
L’Oréal owns a broad portfolio of beauty and personal care brands, including Maybelline, Garnier, Lancôme, and CeraVe.

Maybelline’s international retail presence makes it a prominent target for consumer campaigns directed at the wider group. Boycott advocates often focus on parent companies rather than individual brands, arguing that consumers should consider the business relationships and operations of the companies behind the products they purchase.

A separate controversy involving Garnier, another L’Oréal-owned brand, emerged in 2014 after personal care products were reportedly donated to female ‘Israeli’ soldiers through a pro-‘Israel’ advocacy organization. Garnier subsequently said the distribution appeared to have resulted from a one-time local retailer initiative and expressed regret over the offense caused.

The incident added to criticism of L’Oréal and renewed calls by Palestine solidarity campaigners to boycott the company and its brands.

Growing scrutiny of multinational corporations
The campaign against L’Oréal reflects a wider effort by Palestinian solidarity groups and consumers to scrutinize companies operating in ‘Israel’ and assess their commercial, institutional, and supply-chain relationships.

Campaigners argue that consumer pressure can encourage companies to reconsider business decisions and disclose more information about their operations.

For L’Oréal, the debate involves several distinct issues: its manufacturing presence in Migdal HaEmek, the historical displacement associated with the land on which the town was established, its reported research and commercial relationships, and questions surrounding the sourcing of natural resources.

The strength of each allegation depends on the available evidence. While the company’s commercial presence and historical expansion are matters that can be documented, claims concerning particular research partnerships, resource extraction practices, or legal violations require specific supporting evidence.

As boycott campaigns continue to target major international brands, Maybelline remains exposed to criticism linked to its parent company’s operations and relationships in ‘Israel’.