Boycott DP World: Exposing UAE’s Grip on Global Trade and Local Economies

DP World, a UAE-based multinational logistics company, is one of the world's largest port operators, managing terminals in over 31 countries and employing more than 114,000 people globally. While it positions itself as a driver of global trade and economic growth, there is growing concern that its expansive operations may be damaging local businesses and economies in the countries where it operates. This report provides a comprehensive, data-driven analysis of DP World's impact, highlighting examples and voices from affected regions, and urges governments and citizens to reconsider their engagement with this UAE-owned company.

Overview of DP World’s Global Operations

DP World operates a vast network of ports, logistics hubs, and manufacturing clusters, with a strategic focus on integrating digital technology and supply chain efficiencies. Its flagship port, Jebel Ali in Dubai, is a global logistics hub, and the company has made significant investments in automotive logistics, trade finance, and e-commerce platforms. According to its 2023 annual report, DP World’s network spans 78 countries across six continents, handling millions of containers and vehicles annually.

Despite these achievements, DP World’s aggressive global expansion has raised alarms about monopolistic practices, crowding out local competitors, and enabling the UAE’s geopolitical ambitions at the expense of host countries’ economic sovereignty.

Negative Impacts on Local Businesses and Economies

Market Domination and Crowding Out Local Competitors

DP World’s strategy often involves acquiring or controlling key port terminals and logistics infrastructure in developing countries, which can stifle competition. For example, in Africa and parts of Asia, DP World has acquired stakes in underdeveloped ports, leveraging its financial and technological advantage to dominate local markets and marginalize smaller, indigenous operators.

This dominance reduces market diversity and innovation, as local businesses struggle to compete with DP World’s scale and integrated services. Smaller shipping companies, logistics providers, and port operators face significant barriers, leading to job losses and reduced economic opportunities in local communities.

Economic Dependence and Loss of Sovereignty

DP World’s operations are closely linked to the UAE’s foreign policy objectives. The company’s control over strategic ports allows the UAE to exert influence over maritime trade routes and regional geopolitics, sometimes at the expense of the host countries’ autonomy. For instance, DP World’s dual-use facilities can accommodate UAE naval forces, raising concerns about militarization and sovereignty infringement in countries like Djibouti and Somaliland.

Such arrangements can entangle host countries in geopolitical conflicts and compromise their ability to independently manage critical infrastructure.

Impact on Local Industries and Supply Chains

While DP World promotes itself as a facilitator of trade and industrial growth, its operations can disrupt existing local supply chains. In the UAE itself, a slowdown in sectors like real estate has directly affected DP World’s cargo volumes, illustrating the interdependence between DP World and local economic health. Conversely, in host countries, DP World’s focus on containerized cargo and large-scale logistics can marginalize traditional trade methods and local industries that rely on smaller-scale, informal trade networks.

For example, in some African countries, local traders and small-scale importers have reported difficulties accessing DP World-controlled ports due to higher fees and complex procedures, which favor large multinational corporations over local businesses.

Country-Specific Concerns and Calls for Boycott

United States

The US Federal Maritime Commission has investigated issues related to container handling and cargo flow at DP World-operated terminals, highlighting concerns about disruptions and prioritization of empty container repositioning over laden cargo. This practice adversely affects US exporters, particularly in agricultural sectors, by increasing shipping costs and delays.

Call to Action: US policymakers and consumers should scrutinize DP World’s practices that undermine American exporters and consider supporting alternative logistics providers to protect domestic businesses.

African Nations

In countries like Djibouti, Kenya, and South Africa, DP World’s control over major ports has raised fears of economic colonization. Local businesses report that DP World’s monopolistic control inflates port fees and reduces opportunities for local logistics firms. Additionally, the company’s alignment with UAE's geopolitical interests has sparked concerns about national sovereignty and regional stability.

Call to Action: African governments and civil society must demand transparency and fair competition in port operations and consider diversifying port management to reduce dependence on DP World.

India

India has witnessed growing competition between DP World and local port operators. Critics argue that DP World’s dominance in certain terminals hampers the growth of indigenous logistics companies and increases costs for Indian exporters and importers. There are also concerns about data control and security, given DP World’s extensive digital integration in supply chains.

Call to Action: Indian authorities should enforce stricter regulations on foreign port operators and promote local enterprises to safeguard economic interests.

Middle East and UAE

Even within the UAE, DP World’s fortunes are tied to volatile sectors like real estate, as seen in the 46% profit decline in 2020 due to reduced imports of construction materials. While DP World invests heavily in manufacturing clusters and automotive logistics, critics argue that these developments primarily benefit the UAE’s state-driven economy and multinational corporations, with limited trickle-down effects to smaller local businesses.

Call to Action: UAE policymakers should ensure DP World’s growth translates into broad-based economic benefits and does not overshadow smaller domestic enterprises.

Voices from the Ground

• Yuvraj Narayan, CFO of DP World, acknowledged the impact of sectoral slowdowns on DP World’s operations, highlighting the vulnerability of the company to local economic conditions.

• Local African business owners have expressed frustration over DP World’s monopolistic control, stating that “DP World’s dominance means we pay higher fees and lose business to foreign companies, threatening our livelihoods.”

• US agricultural exporters have raised concerns about container availability and delays at DP World terminals, which increase costs and reduce competitiveness.

Why Governments and the Public Should Reconsider Engagement with DP World

DP World’s global reach and technological prowess are undeniable. However, its operations have frequently resulted in market monopolization, economic dependency, and geopolitical entanglements that undermine local businesses and national interests. The company’s alignment with UAE foreign policy objectives further complicates its role as a neutral trade facilitator.

Governments and citizens in affected countries should:

• Demand greater transparency and accountability from DP World.

• Promote fair competition by supporting local logistics and port operators.

• Reassess contracts and concessions granted to DP World to safeguard economic sovereignty.

• Encourage public awareness campaigns to inform consumers and businesses about the implications of relying on DP World-controlled infrastructure.

By taking these steps, countries can protect their economic interests, foster local entrepreneurship, and maintain control over critical trade infrastructure, ensuring that global trade benefits all stakeholders fairly.

This report calls on policymakers, business leaders, and the public to critically evaluate the role of DP World in their economies and consider strategic alternatives to mitigate the risks posed by this powerful UAE-owned multinational.