Over the past couple of years, corporations operating in politically fragile areas have faced critical scrutiny. With the present situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, most consumer boycotts invite consumers to refrain from doing business with or supporting Israel in any other way; of these campaigns, the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement invites consumers to boycott Israel entirely. In this case, Monster Energy, one of the world’s leading energy drink brands, has raised some debate regarding the firm itself. Monster Energy is arguably the most popular energy drink brand available. Monster Energy stands out in part from other energy drink brands by its extreme marketing efforts aimed at youth, athletes, and extreme sports enthusiasts, and by its claw-marked cans.
Since its founding in 2002 (originally as part of Hansen Natural), it has consistently expanded its market share, product offerings, and global footprint. Whether Monster Energy backs Israel is an issue with wide and even touchy subjects that relate to international business ethics, consumer movements, and geopolitics. The blog creates a more balanced and detailed overview of the relations, work, and scandals around the brand of Monster Energy in Israel. The strategic alliances, distribution, and investment have also been used to expand the presence of Monster in the international market in a bid to ensure that it has maximum global presence, with countries such as the Middle East and Israel not being an exception. You can hardly think of it as anything other than a subcultural brand or lifestyle association, as well as a beverage brand.
Ownership: Coca-Cola’s stake in Monster Energy
Another decisive point of the boycott discussion is the structure of ownership at Monster Energy. In 2014, The Coca-Cola Company sold a 16.7 percent stake in Monster Beverage Corporation to switch its energy drink assets to Monster in exchange for energy drink-free assets of Monster. This provided Monster as a company with increased exposure to the distribution system of the Coca-Cola Company, the most powerful and extensive system in the world. It resulted in the fact that Coca-Cola became the biggest shareholder of Monster Energy, but Monster is a separate company.
- Distribution Advantage: Monster finds the use of the strong worldwide delivery channels offered by Coca-Cola, and, in this way, its goods become accessible in any kind of market, including Israel.
- Implications: Since Coca-Cola is not merely a supplier but has such shares of ownership, its practices and actions shade the reputation and the treatment of Monster.
Monster Energy’s business presence in Israel
Monster Energy products are available in Israel. Monster has opened a representative office in the country, and an Israeli was employed as its regional marketing manager; it is an example of a commercial commitment towards the Israeli market. Its products are highly distributed in the retail sector of the country and are listed among the giants in the energy and sports drinks sector in Israel. In Israel, as well as in other countries, Monster reaches younger, dynamic, and urban customers, and the Monster marketing has aligned the product with the concepts of adventure, sports, music, and youth culture.
Parent company’s relationship with Israel and settlements
Monster is owned, in large part, by the Coca-Cola Company, which has its bottling plant located in the Atarot industrial settlement in East Jerusalem, territory identified by international law as part of the occupied Palestinian Territories. Activists have also strongly criticized this fact due to the view that Coca-Cola (and by extension, related brands such as Monster Energy) is involved in promoting the Israeli government policy and the growth of settlements. This is one type of business activity that, according to many boycott advocates, would amount to indirect political support.
- These corporate relationships designate Monster Energy as the target of a boycott by pro-Palestinian and BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) organizations, as opposed to any official statement or political expression by Monster Energy.
- To this end, these lists make the case that buying Monster products is a way to enrich a corporate web with material connections to Israeli settlements and is therefore a sort of implicit endorsement.
Popular perception, social media, and communal reaction
Individuals have reacted to the Coca-Cola-Monster association by calling for a boycott of Monster Energy, where they have shared their message on social media platforms, TikTok, Reddit, and dedicated boycott monitoring pages.
- The ethics of the consumption of Monster Energy and whether the points of the Monster Energy connections to Israel are too broad are discussed in the forums and on TikTok dedicated to the boycott. Others apply it to matters of health, others to property structures, and others cite either a combination of all these or some direct or indirect connection to settlement activity.
- Social media virality: Video clips and meme culture have helped amplify calls for boycotts, listing Monster alongside other brands with similar supply chain or investment links.
- Online community of monsters: As it is, some of these subcommunities (including the Monster Energy subreddit) may fall on the pro-Palestinian side, but this does not represent the official position of the company. Israel-related posts tend to elicit a strong response in a community, and this has created much controversy and polarization.
- Direct support argument: Arguably, by selling in Israel and through possessing the commercial structure that makes a profit out of settlement activity, Monster is supporting Israel.
Monster Energy has no documented political statements in the defense of Israel or government policies thereof. Through the official public communications, the company concentrates on the business aspects, marketing of products, and sponsorship. But when these matters are not mentioned, particularly in the context of the settlement by Coca-Cola, they develop more fear on the part of the activists.
The ethics and nuances of a boycott
The reasoning behind the boycott lists that go against Monster Energy is based upon:
- Direct commercial presence of the monster in Israel.
- Human rights activists are targeting the investment and plant of Coca-Cola in Israeli settlements, citing it to be a contravention of international law.
- Although Monster Energy and Coca-Cola may not influence one another directly in what they do, the perception of corporate responsibility, further described by numerous activists, takes a wider perspective that links profits and investments to the ethical implications of the location and manner of business operation. Others claim that punishing brands associated with global brands, which are only partially owned or distributed, is unjustified, particularly when the brands do not engage in any political advocacy. According to them, boycotts are only supposed to be directed against an overt sponsorship or financing of unacceptable practices, rather than against the mere running of business in disputed markets.
Is commercial presence the same as political support?
This is at the center of the controversy:
- Pro-Boycott Argument: A tacit support is in any form of active business presence, particularly in circumstances where that presence increases the tax base or in light of the economic system that is controversial.
- Corporate Perspective: Companies are loyal to profit and market share and not to political statements and governmental policy, unless they explicitly state so themselves.
- Monster Energy exists in this gray area of the argument. It is also operationally active in Israel, and its fronting investor is directly conducting business in the disputed state. This alone is a sufficient reason to boycott the product and declare it as favoring Israel to some. To others, the absence of a political message will imply that Monster Energy cannot be politically debated but must be regarded just like any other global consumer brand product.
What do boycott movements say?
- Boycotted Brands Sites: Monster Energy is openly included in the list of brands boycotted because it is owned by Coca-Cola, and the headquarters are located in the Atarot settlement.
- Online tools allow Muslim and pro-Palestinian activists to review which brands to avoid, and Monster often comes up as non-compliant or on the boycott list.
- Social Commentary: There is a lot of talk to avoid Monster due to ethical, health, or even political reasons. The internet forums highlight the difficulty of avoiding all the products that are attributed to such multinationals as Coca-Cola, which remain so widespread.
Conclusion
Monster Energy is in business in Israel, with native offices and promotion. Its biggest shareholder is Coca-Cola, which is being accused of financing Israeli settlements through a factory in Atarot. The company is also listed on multiple boycotts because of this ownership connection, rather than having endorsed Israeli government policy. No direct political endorsement can be traced to Monster Energy in Israel. Boycott arguments have wider implications of questioning the morality of the secondary connections, accountability, and the actions of multinationals in the conflict between nations.
