How does a company justify operating in an occupied territory while still claiming to respect basic human rights?

Companies working in conflict zones are expected to follow international frameworks such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). These require adopting a conflict-sensitive, rights-based approach grounded in respect for international law. Azura Group, however, provides a textbook example of how not to do it.

In a Borat-esque press release on 2 November 2025 - titled “The Azura Group pays tribute to His Majesty King Mohammed VI, may God Glorify Him, following a historic day for Our National Cause” - the company refers to the conflict as “artificial” and praises Morocco’s “territorial integrity.” 

See the statement on LinkedIn (or download) and Facebook (or download) 

The tone is indistinguishable from official Moroccan government messaging. This stands in direct contrast to the UNGPs, which emphasise neutrality, heightened human rights due diligence, and respect for the right to self-determination - particularly in illegally occupied or conflict ridden territories.

In a Borat-esque press release published on 2 November 2025 - titled “The Azura Group pays tribute to His Majesty King Mohammed VI, may God Glorify Him, following a historic day for Our National Cause” - the company refers to the conflict as “artificial” and praises Morocco’s “territorial integrity.” 

In a video posted on Azura's Facebook account, young men with Moroccan flags and portraits of the king can be seen in the street - together with posters of Azura (download video). “The Azura youth celebrate the UN decision which confirms Morocco's sovereignty over its Sahara”, it writes. 

Despite this overtly political stance Azura is certified as responsible by the Alliance for Water Stewardship (AWS). 

AWS requires compliance with Moroccan legislation - precisely the legal framework Azura celebrates. The scheme acknowledges that Western Sahara is not part of Morocco under international law, nor do they address the Saharawi people’s right to self-determination. The standards effectively erase the territory’s legal status altogether.

Azura’s statement incorrectly claims that the UN Security Council resolution of 31 October 2025 refers to Morocco’s autonomy proposal as “the basis” for resolving the conflict. It does not. Azura did not mention the Council’s reference to the Saharawi people’s right to self-determination. 

The company also relies heavily on official Moroccan terminology: “the artificial conflict over the Moroccan Sahara”;“Southern Provinces”; “territorial integrity of the Kingdom”.

These phrases belong firmly in Morocco’s political lexicon - not in the communications of a supposedly neutral multinational company.

Azura’s agriculture industry is located on the part of Western Sahara that Morocco invaded illegally in 1979, to UN condemnation. Referring to the conflict as “artificial” is part of the official Moroccan propaganda terminology. 

WSRW wrote to Azura Group in 2024, and has not yet obtained a response. WSRW wrote to Alliance for Water Stewardship on 6 December 2024, and to its related certifying body WSAS on 1 July 2025, but has not since obtained a response. 

It is not often that WSRW has come across such profound and outspoken political positions in support of the illegal occupation. An exception is from another French company, HDF Energy. 

Since you're here....
WSRW’s work is being read and used more than ever. We work totally independently and to a large extent voluntarily. Our work takes time, dedication and diligence. But we do it because we believe it matters – and we hope you do too. We look for more monthly donors to support our work. If you'd like to contribute to our work – 3€, 5€, 8€ monthly… what you can spare – the future of WSRW would be much more secure. You can set up a monthly donation to WSRW quickly here.