Search

Gender inequality in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) remains a persistent challenge for organizations in innovation-driven sectors worldwide. In Israel, a global hub for entrepreneurship and advanced technology, the underrepresentation of women in many STEM fields is especially significant. It affects talent availability, organizational creativity, and the ability to develop technologies for diverse populations. Therefore, it is not only a matter of fairness, but also a challenge that can weaken innovation leadership. From an ESG perspective, gender equality in STEM is closely linked to equal opportunity, inclusive decision-making, and growth based on diverse talent. Understanding where these gaps emerge—from secondary school, through higher education, and into the workforce—is critical for organizations, policymakers, and academic institutions. In Israel’s high-tech industry, women make up only about one-third of employees, with even lower representation in technological roles, senior management, and startup leadership. Women-led startups also receive only a small share of total investment capital. Although progress has been made, at the current pace it could take decades to close the gap. This has direct implications for innovation, as homogeneous teams may overlook diverse user needs and risks. The roots of inequality begin earlier. In academia, women’s participation in STEM degrees has grown, yet representation remains much lower in core technology fields such as computer science, mathematics, and engineering. At the high-school level, girls are less likely than boys to choose STEM tracks, often due to stereotypes, school climate, and social expectations rather than ability. Several factors help explain these patterns: social stereotypes, workplace cultures that are less supportive, limited mentorship opportunities, and behavioral barriers that reduce participation in leadership or development programs. At the same time, many organizations are taking action. Examples include early exposure programs for girls in coding and technology, mentoring initiatives, women’s leadership development in technological military units, and academic programs designed to support female STEM students. Research shows that even small, low-cost interventions can significantly improve participation and completion rates. In conclusion, promoting gender equality in STEM is both a social responsibility and a strategic advantage. Expanding women’s participation can strengthen innovation, improve competitiveness, widen the talent pool, and enhance employer branding. Meaningful progress requires long-term commitment, data-driven strategies, and coordinated action across education, academia, and industry. To read the full article, visit our website in Hebrew.

Anthropic, the company behind the AI tool Claude, recently published "Claude's Constitution" - a detailed public document outlining the values, ethical principles, and operational boundaries of its AI system. Unlike a generic code of ethics, this is a working document that explicitly acknowledges that AI is not "objective," but is driven by social and moral assumptions embedded at the core of the product itself. At first glance, this looks like a moral statement. But is it really? A Rational Economic Move Looking through the lens of economist Oliver Williamson's transaction cost theory, Anthropic's decision to publish a constitution is not necessarily a values-driven gesture - it's a rational economic strategy. In environments characterized by uncertainty, information asymmetry, and weak governmental regulation, companies need internal protection mechanisms to reduce risk and stabilize operations. When state-level safeguards are unreliable, building your own becomes a competitive advantage. The Shifting Balance of Power In recent decades, large corporations have grown wealthier and more powerful than most nation-states. Governments increasingly depend on tech giants to manage critical infrastructure, and corporations hold a clear advantage when it comes to data and information control. In this reality, the pressure to regulate corporate behavior has shifted away from governments toward other mechanisms - including financial markets, shareholders, and the companies themselves. Voluntary Regulation as a Governance Tool Anthropic's constitution is a form of voluntary self-regulation - not imposed by the state, but emerging from within the business sector. By publicly committing to ethical boundaries (for example, Claude will not assist in creating manipulative content, even when asked), Anthropic signals to consumers, regulators, and business partners: "This tool is not a weapon; it can be trusted". Furthermore, by shaping its own rules now, the company aims to get ahead of potentially far stricter government or supranational regulation down the line. This logic was put into action beyond paper: Anthropic publicly confronted the U.S. Department of Defense, demanding that the Pentagon commit to boundaries on how Claude could be used - before agreeing to work with them.   A New Model for ESG? Anthropic's constitution may represent a broader shift - one where ESG, voluntary regulation, and technological innovation converge. A model in which corporate responsibility is not at odds with business interest, but an inseparable part of it. Yet important questions remain: In an era where businesses are shaping the very regulations they operate under - what is the new role of regulators? Do they still represent the broader public interest? And what tools do governments need to navigate this challenging new landscape? To read the full article, visit our website in Hebrew.

Following last week’s post, this second and concluding part of the series summarizes additional key insights from the webinar “The EU Sustainability Omnibus”  (March 12, 2026), a joint initiative of Israel’s Foreign Trade Administration, the Export Institute, and the Arison ESG Center at Reichman University. While Part I mapped the evolving EU regulatory landscape and the balance between strict frameworks like the CSRD and the flexibility introduced by the Omnibus package, Part II shifts the focus to the personal legal exposure of Israeli directors and officers. Professor Roy Shapira highlights a critical transformation: EU ESG regulation is no longer merely a corporate reporting framework but a driver reshaping fiduciary duties under Israeli corporate law. Through doctrines such as the duty of oversight, sustainability risks are becoming embedded within directors’ legal responsibilities, effectively turning ESG from a voluntary consideration into a core compliance risk. Even where Israeli companies fall outside the formal scope of directives like the CSDDD, the indirect impact is substantial. Firms integrated into European value chains, particularly B2B suppliers, are likely to face increasing compliance demands from their EU counterparts, including detailed due diligence questionnaires. As a result, ESG expectations become a de facto market requirement, influencing access to contracts, financing, and competitive positioning. A central challenge lies in enforcement. Because EU sustainability directives emphasize processes rather than strict outcomes, their effectiveness depends heavily on credible enforcement mechanisms. Without this, there is a risk of superficial compliance. However, Professor Shapira stresses that under Israeli law, directors may still face liability for failures of oversight, even in the absence of explicit EU sanctions, particularly where they fail to establish monitoring systems or respond to warning signs. Drawing on the Caremark doctrine, increasingly referenced in Israeli jurisprudence, directors are expected to implement effective reporting systems and actively address compliance risks, including those related to ESG. Courts may assess liability not only based on what directors knew, but on what they should have known. The absence of ESG-related discussions at the board level could itself serve as evidence of a breach of duty. This evolving legal landscape is already driving organizational change. Responsibility for ESG is shifting from CSR functions to compliance departments, ensuring closer integration with senior management and board oversight. Ultimately, the message is clear: despite targeted regulatory easing, ESG is not weakening but maturing into a binding framework shaped jointly by regulation, market forces, and expanding legal accountability. For Israeli companies, ESG has become a strategic, legal, and operational imperative in engaging with global markets. To read the full article, visit our website in Hebrew.

EU Sustainability Omnibus Regulation | Part I On March 12, 2026, the Foreign Trade Administration at the Ministry of Economy, the Israel Export Institute, and the Arison Center for ESG at Reichman University hosted a webinar titled ״The EU Sustainability Omnibus״ . The event analyzed recent European legislative updates, marking a structural shift from voluntary Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) to a mandatory era of ESG risk management and legal compliance. The discussion centered on the EU Sustainability Omnibus , a comprehensive initiative designed to streamline corporate reporting. By updating core directives (CSRD, CSDDD), the EU seeks to balance the ambitious goals of the European Green Deal with the practical need to maintain business competitiveness. This post is the first of a two-part series. A View from Brussels: Sven Gentner (DG FISMA, European Commission) Background: Why Comprehensive Sustainability Regulation? Gentner addressed the fundamental need for a Sustainable Finance framework. The goal is to ensure capital from banks and investors is channeled toward environmental and social projects rather than short-term profits. To meet Green Deal targets - including a 55% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and climate neutrality by 2050 - the EU requires an estimated €600 billion in annual investment. This necessitates mobilizing private capital through transparency: reliable, comparable, and audited data that allows markets to price risks and opportunities accurately. Transparency Infrastructure: CSRD and ESRS The EU implemented this vision through the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). The core principle is "Full Double Materiality": companies must report not only on how sustainability risks affect them (financial materiality) but also on their own impact on the environment and society (impact materiality), covering everything from carbon emissions to governance. The Omnibus Initiative: Reducing Burden and Adjusting to Reality Launched in February 2025, the Omnibus initiative adapts 2022 regulations to current geopolitical and economic shifts. It focuses on three strategic goals: Reduce burden: Cutting bureaucracy and compliance costs. Stay true to objectives: Streamlining without retreating from Green Deal commitments. Act fast: Providing regulatory certainty after years of transition. Key Changes under the Omnibus: Change of Scope: The reporting threshold rose to 1,000 employees and €450M in turnover, exempting 85% of previously covered companies. Value Chain Cap: Limits the data large firms can demand from SME suppliers to prevent overwhelming smaller partners. ESRS Updates: Reducing "data points" to make reporting more focused and effective. CSDDD Reforms: The Due Diligence Directive now applies only to very large firms (5,000+ employees, €1.5B turnover), with implementation delayed to 2029 and the removal of the mandatory "climate transition plan". Non-EU Companies: Impact on Foreign Firms Foreign companies (including Israeli firms) fall under CSRD if their EU turnover exceeds €450M with a significant local presence. Notably, non-EU firms are only required to report on impact, as the information is intended for local stakeholders (customers, civil society) rather than investors. Implementation Timeline Mid-2026: Omnibus and ESRS updates transposed into national laws. 2027: Publication of specific standards for Non-EU companies. 2028: The first fiscal year for which eligible non-EU companies must report. The Duality: EU Rigor vs. US "Headwinds": Dr. Ruth Dagan (Arison ESG Center / Herzog Law Firm) Dr. Dagan presented a complex global landscape where Israeli companies navigate conflicting regulatory trends. EU Ambition vs. US Backlash A sharp duality has emerged: while the EU pushes for a 90% emission reduction by 2040, the US is experiencing significant anti-ESG political backlash, including legal challenges against investors following ESG principles. This creates a "regulatory tension" for global companies. The K-Shape Trend and Market Forces Dagan noted a "K-Shape" pattern: while some regulations see a partial retreat (via the Omnibus), market leaders continue to deepen their decarbonization efforts. Even with federal resistance in the US, states like California and New York are advancing their own climate disclosure laws. Furthermore, market giants like Amazon and Microsoft continue to demand ESG data from suppliers regardless of regulation. Extraterritorial Impact on Israeli Companies Israeli firms face the "Brussels Effect" through: Direct Application: Via CSRD thresholds. Indirect Application: Via integration into European supply chains. Like REACH (chemicals) or carbon pricing, EU standards often become the "de facto" global voluntary standard. Key Trends Anti-Greenwashing: Enforcement is already active under consumer protection laws (e.g., Germany, Canada). Greenwashing now carries financial penalties, with ECB data showing higher interest rates for sued companies. Sustainable Finance: Despite a slight rise in fossil fuel funding, sustainable finance continues to grow as major institutions signal long-term commitment. Summary: The New Era of ESG According to Osapiens , 86-90% of EU companies plan to maintain sustainability activities despite the Omnibus "softening." The legal obligation may have narrowed, but the business norm remains. For Israeli companies, ESG is evolving from a compliance burden into a critical competitive advantage.   Shaked Namdar Tawil, Intern at the Arison Center for ESG Blog Team, and a Law and Government student at Reichman University. Hagar Zuarets, Intern at the Arison Center for ESG Blog Team, and a Law and Business Administration student at Reichman University.

This post examines the inherent tension between the surging phenomenon of corporate philanthropy and the classical “profit maximization” doctrine in corporate law. While the rise of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has turned community donations into a dominant practice, Israeli law is left with a lingering question regarding the “Ele-Philanthropist in the Boardroom” problem – the difficulty of classifying donations as actions that are “in the best interests of the company”. The post proposes a shift away from the attempt to shoehorn philanthropic contributions under the narrow principle of profit maximization. Instead, it advocates for the revitalization of the concluding clause of Section 11(a) of the Israeli Companies Law, 5759-1999, as an independent legal path. By utilizing “valve concepts” such as “reasonable amount” and “worthy cause”, and by anchoring donations within the company’s Articles of Association, the post outlines a “Safe Harbor” model that balances managerial autonomy with the protection of shareholders. לקריאת הרשומה המלאה, בקרו באתר שלנו בעברית.

Employee mobility policies are an often overlooked yet highly influential aspect of corporate environmental and social impact. Workplace transportation policies, whether explicit or implicit, shape how employees commute by influencing factors such as parking availability, company car benefits, commuting reimbursements, flexible working hours, and workplace location. These policies significantly affect travel behavior, including the number of trips employees make, the timing of travel, and the transportation modes they choose. Despite their importance, current ESG reporting frameworks provide only limited attention to employee transportation. Major reporting standards such as the GHG Protocol , GRI , and the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)  treat commuting and many business trips as indirect emissions under Scope 3 , which receives far less rigorous reporting requirements than direct organizational emissions (Scopes 1 and 2). This approach creates several distortions: companies may underreport commuting emissions, responsibility for business travel may depend arbitrarily on vehicle ownership, and the substantial influence employers have over commuting behavior, through policies such as free parking, is largely ignored. Moreover, environmental reporting frameworks focus primarily on greenhouse gas emissions while overlooking other negative externalities associated with car-dependent mobility, including congestion, noise pollution, land use impacts, and road accidents. From a social perspective, ESG frameworks similarly fail to address the broader role employers play in shaping equitable access to employment. Current reporting requirements focus mainly on workplace transportation injuries, without considering how employer mobility policies affect the accessibility of jobs for individuals without access to private vehicles or for disadvantaged populations. This omission is particularly striking given that ESG frameworks, including the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) , emphasize equal opportunity, diversity, and inclusion. The article argues that ESG reporting frameworks should expand their treatment of employee transportation. Companies should be encouraged to take greater responsibility for the mobility patterns they help create by promoting walking, cycling, and public transportation while reducing reliance on private cars. More comprehensive reporting requirements could also encourage companies to cooperate with public policy efforts, such as congestion pricing—and to actively work with local authorities and stakeholders to reduce the environmental and social externalities associated with employee commuting. Strengthening corporate responsibility for employee transportation would allow ESG reporting frameworks to better capture a significant source of environmental and social impact and could serve as a meaningful tool for advancing more sustainable and equitable mobility systems. To read the full article, visit our website in Hebrew.

In recent decades, the business world has shifted from voluntary CSR to a complex system of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) metrics. While agencies like MSCI and S&P provide scores reflecting corporate performance, skepticism remains: is a high ESG score evidence of reliable reporting , or merely a "smoke screen" to distract from poor business results? In two new articles published in Finance Research Letters , Prof. Dov Solomon and his colleagues ( Dr. Rimona Palas , Dr. Ido Baum , and Dr. Dalit Gafni ) examined this tension. Based on a wide sample of U.S. companies, the research refutes the fear that ESG masks financial failures, proving instead that high ESG performance is a clear indicator of superior financial reporting quality. The Link Between ESG Ratings and Financial Reporting Quality In the study ESG Regulation and Financial Reporting Quality: Friends or Foes? , we analyzed 3,907 U.S. companies (2012–2022). Using metrics such as Earnings Persistence, Cash Flow Predictability, and Restatements, the findings were unequivocal: Positive Correlation: High ESG ratings are directly linked to more reliable and predictable financial data, not at the expense of reporting quality. Lower Risk: Companies with strong ESG performance show a lower frequency of financial restatements. The BRT Effect: Following the 2019 Business Roundtable statement - shifting focus from "Shareholder Primacy" to "Stakeholders" - this positive link to transparency has only strengthened. The Impact of the Social (S) Component on Reporting Quality In the study ESG Ratings and Financial Reporting Quality: Why Social Performance Matters , we deconstructed ESG into its three components to test their individual impact: The "Social" Factor: While many assume Governance (G) is the primary driver, the research reveals that the Social (S) component actually has the strongest link to reporting quality. The Investor Gap: A major disconnect exists: while 57% of institutional investors prioritize reporting quality, only 2% consider the Social component significant in their decisions. The Takeaway: Investors seeking reporting reliability should attribute much greater weight to the Social component, as it most closely reflects internal integrity. Not Just an Expression of Values: ESG Rating as a Reflection of Organizational Culture The Social component - encompassing organizational culture and human capital - directly impacts the people and systems responsible for financial oversight. These findings show that ESG investment is not just about "conscience"; it is a core management strategy that builds market trust and serves as a vital tool for risk management in an uncertain world. Prof. Dov Solomon , Head of the LL.M. Program, Academic Center of Law and Business

Human rights management is no longer just a value-based commitment - it has become a strategic business necessity. In today’s regulatory and geopolitical environment, Israeli companies are increasingly required to demonstrate structured, professional, and transparent approaches to managing human rights risks. A new guide published by Maala outlines a practical and applicable framework for companies operating in Israel. The document translates international standards such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights into actionable steps tailored to the local business context. The guide covers policy development, human rights due diligence, risk mapping across operations and supply chains, governance structures, stakeholder engagement, and regulatory preparedness - particularly in light of evolving European requirements. It also provides sector-specific examples and measurable indicators to help organizations move from declarative commitments to operational implementation. By offering a structured seven-step due diligence process and internal and external management tools, the document enables companies to strengthen trust, mitigate risk, and enhance long-term business resilience. To read the full article, visit our website in Hebrew.

Corporate ESG (environmental, social, and governance) statements have shifted from voluntary branding tools to increasingly binding legal representations. Regulators, courts, and civil actors now treat climate and sustainability claims as legally relevant, especially when gaps appear between public commitments and actual practices. This shift is driving a reassessment of “soft law” standards as de facto legal benchmarks and expanding scrutiny of corporate governance, director duties, and legal risk management. The article focuses on greenwashing as an emerging basis for liability and explores its implications, including in the Israeli context. Greenwashing can be grouped into three main categories: climate greenwashing (e.g., unsupported net-zero or carbon neutrality claims), financial greenwashing (ESG-labeled investment products lacking real screening or oversight), and consumer greenwashing (vague environmental marketing without scientific grounding). All share a common feature: a mismatch between public claims and the methodological or factual infrastructure behind them. International case law shows a clear trend toward treating ESG commitments as legally meaningful. The Dutch Shell climate case established that corporate climate policy can be evaluated under a duty-of-care framework. Although the appellate outcome narrowed the remedy, the principle that climate risk management is part of reasonable corporate conduct remains influential. In the UK, the ClientEarth derivative action against Shell directors reinforced the idea that climate risk is embedded in directors’ fiduciary and care duties, even though the claim failed procedurally. Consumer cases such as the Dutch ruling against KLM confirmed that exaggerated environmental marketing can mislead the public, while the German DWS enforcement action demonstrated that ESG misrepresentations in financial products can trigger regulatory penalties. These cases collectively signal that ESG claims require measurable, documented backing. A key development is the use of voluntary sustainability standards as legal reference points. EU initiatives like the CSRD and the proposed Green Claims Directive aim to formalize this by requiring verifiable methodologies behind environmental claims. At the same time, critics warn of over-deterrence, or “greenhushing,” where firms avoid making legitimate climate disclosures out of fear of litigation. Additional challenges include the technical complexity of climate metrics and debate over whether litigation meaningfully reduces emissions. The policy task, therefore, is to set evidentiary and governance standards that encourage transparency without suppressing innovation. For Israeli companies, greenwashing is both a global and domestic legal risk. Firms active in international markets may already be exposed to foreign enforcement. Domestically, Israeli securities law, consumer protection law, and directors’ fiduciary duties provide a framework through which greenwashing claims could develop. Misleading ESG disclosures may trigger securities liability, vague environmental marketing may violate consumer law, and failure to align climate strategy with public commitments could be framed as a breach of director duties. Overall, greenwashing is emerging as a gateway to ESG litigation and reflects a deeper structural shift in corporate accountability. The central challenge is crafting a balanced duty-of-care standard that enforces transparency and methodological rigor while preserving legitimate environmental initiatives. In Israel, careful adoption of these principles could strengthen both public protection and legal certainty in the business sector. To read the full article, visit our website in Hebrew.

ESG ratings have become essential tools for capital allocation and risk management. However, a 2025 OECD report reveals a fundamental gap between their intended purpose and actual implementation. Examining over 2,000 metrics, the report finds that most ratings measure policies and declarations (inputs) rather than tangible results and impact (outputs). This knowledge record analyzes the economic and systemic implications of this "sustainability illusion," with particular relevance for the Israeli context. It explores how misaligned incentives reward branding over operational change, masking systemic risks in ways reminiscent of pre-2008 financial dynamics. Using case studies like Boeing and Volkswagen, the article demonstrates that real risk lies in corporate culture and incentive structures rather than formal procedures. Ultimately, the author argues for a transition from measuring intentions to measuring performance. ESG must be reframed as a core governance and resilience tool - essential for efficient capital allocation and long-term economic stability - rather than a mere reputational asset. לקריאת הרשומה המלאה, בקרו באתר שלנו בעברית.

The Climate Crisis in Our Wardrobe While oil and chemicals are often blamed for pollution, the fashion industry is a major global polluter, responsible for 8% to 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Each year, it releases 500,000 tons of microplastics and generates 61 million tons of textile waste . A garment's impact is measured through Life-cycle Analysis (LCA) , covering everything from raw material growth to disposal. The Fast Fashion model , built on cheap production and rapid turnover, fails to reflect its true "externalities." The environmental damage and labor rights violations are not included in the consumer price, but are instead shifted to producing nations and the Global South. Global Trends vs. Israeli Policy Many nations, particularly in the EU, are shifting toward sustainability through three main channels: Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR): Making producers responsible for a product's entire life cycle, including waste. Import Tariffs: Using taxes to protect local industry and reduce carbon footprints. Local Production: Reducing reliance on global supply chains to cut transport emissions. In contrast, Israeli policy encourages fast fashion. This reflects a failure to integrate ESG principles into public strategy, prioritizing short-term costs over long-term responsibility. Since the 1990s, Israel has systematically lowered garment tariffs from 33% to nearly 0%. Most recently, the 2026 budget increased the VAT exemption threshold for personal imports to $150 , further incentivizing mass consumption of cheap imports. The Collapse of Local Industry Between 1990 and 2017, employment in Israel's fashion industry plummeted by 82% . This crisis was driven by: E-commerce giants: Platforms like Shein and AliExpress promoting near-compulsive consumption. COVID-19: The shift from local physical stores to global online shopping. The "Iron Swords" War: Disruptions to supply chains and the workforce , leading to further business closures. While the Ministry of Economy proposed a recovery plan in 2018, it lacked significant environmental components or EPR mechanisms, proving to be "too little, too late." Civil Society and the Path to Reform With the government lagging behind, civil society groups like "Mitlabshot" (Fair Fashion Israel) and Greenpeace are leading the way. They advocate for sustainable legislation and recently succeeded in canceling double taxation on second-hand clothing. However, systemic change requires a regulatory overhaul. Policy Recommendations for Reform Tax and Tariff Reform: Gradually raise import tariffs to 20-25% and provide tax incentives for sustainable brands and repair services. EPR Legislation: Enact Extended Producer Responsibility laws that hold importers accountable for waste and prohibit the destruction of unsold stock. Support for Local Industry: Establish a government fund to support local designers, sustainable R&D, and create a "Sustainable Israeli Fashion" certification. The Circular Economy: Mandate space for second-hand stores in malls at reduced rents and support community-based recycling platforms. Environmental Regulation: Strictly limit imports containing hazardous chemicals (following the EU REACH standards) and restrict aggressive fast-fashion advertising. Conclusion: Rhetoric vs. Reality The Israeli case highlights the gap between sustainability declarations and actual policy. While the developed world tightens regulations to fight fast fashion, Israel is moving in the opposite direction. Without integrating ESG considerations into the heart of government strategy, the environmental and social costs will continue to rise. Dr. Zohar Barnett-Itzha ki, Head of the Environmental and Social Sustainability Research Group, Ruppin Academic Center.

Enforcing environmental law in cases of harm to the public at large is inherently difficult. In Israel, the state itself acknowledges that it lacks sufficient tools to effectively confront large polluting corporations. This structural weakness, combined with dispersed public interests and strong, well-resourced corporate actors, results in inadequate deterrence and the externalization of environmental costs onto the public. Although private enforcement through representative actions could have strengthened deterrence, it has largely fallen short. Environmental litigation increasingly ends in settlement agreements that prioritize expediency over accountability. These settlements often fail to reflect the full scope of environmental harm or the profits generated by violations, and they typically exclude personal liability for corporate officers. As a result, they undermine deterrence and allow polluters to present themselves as environmentally responsible without assuming real responsibility. The handling of the Ashalim Stream disaster exemplifies these shortcomings. Despite extensive environmental damage, enforcement mechanisms failed to impose meaningful consequences on either the corporation or its decision-makers, leaving the public and the environment to bear the cost. To read the full article, visit our website in Hebrew.