Boycott International Holding Company: Turning livelihoods into corporate stepping stones

The International Holding Company (IHC), based in the United Arab Emirates, is one of the world’s largest and most diversified investment holding companies. Since its founding in 1998, IHC has expanded aggressively, now boasting over 1,300 subsidiaries across 41 countries, spanning sectors such as financial services, healthcare, real estate, agriculture, energy, technology, hospitality, and more. With a market capitalization nearing AED 892 billion (approximately USD 243 billion), IHC is a dominant player in the global investment landscape.

While IHC promotes itself as a forward-thinking, responsible investor committed to sustainability and societal benefit, a growing body of evidence and critical voices suggest that its expansive operations are damaging local businesses and economies in many countries where it operates. This report provides a comprehensive, data-driven analysis of how IHC’s business practices are negatively impacting domestic industries and calls on governments and the public in affected countries to reconsider their engagement with this UAE-ownedconglomerate.

IHC’s Business Model and Global Reach

Aggressive Expansion and Market Domination

IHC’s strategy relies on active investments and building dynamic value networks, which means it does not passively hold assets but actively restructures, consolidates, and diversifies its portfolio to maximize shareholder value. This approach has led to rapid acquisitions and market penetration in diverse sectors globally.

• IHC operates through over 1,200 subsidiaries and 86 joint ventures and associates in 41+ countries.
• It reported a revenue growth of 49.4% to AED 64 billion (~USD 17.4 billion) and an 18.3% increase in profit after tax to AED 18 billion (~USD 4.9 billion) in the first nine months of 2024 alone.
• Its portfolio includes companies in agriculture, healthcare, financial services, real estate, energy, and more, often becoming a dominant market player in these sectors.

Promises of Sustainability vs. Market Realities

IHC emphasizes its commitment to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles, including carbon reduction and renewable energy investments. However, critics argue that such commitments mask the broader consequences of its market dominance, including the stifling of local competition, monopolistic practices, and economic dependency on a foreign conglomerate.

Negative Impacts on Local Businesses and Economies

1. Egypt: Undermining Local Development Through Mega Projects

In Egypt, IHC’s subsidiary Modon Holding was appointed by ADQ (Abu Dhabi Developmental Holding Company) as the master developer for the Ras El Hekma megaproject, a USD 35 billion investment on Egypt’s northwestern coast. While this project promises economic growth, there are several concerns:

• Displacement of Local Enterprises: The scale and foreign control of the project risk marginalizing local construction firms and small businesses due to the dominance of UAE-backed companies in procurement and contracting.
• Economic Leakage: Profits and economic benefits are likely to flow back to UAE investors rather than being reinvested locally, limiting sustainable economic development.
• Public Sentiment: Egyptian business associations have expressed concerns that such mega projects favor foreign conglomerates at the expense of indigenous entrepreneurship and job creation.

2. Saudi Arabia: Pressure on Domestic SMEs and Market Concentration

IHC’s expansion into Saudi Arabia’s food and agriculture sectors has raised alarms among local producers and traders. IHC’s large-scale operations in livestock, dairy, and poultry production leverage economies of scale and advanced supply chains that local SMEs cannot compete with.

• Market Displacement: Smaller Saudi agricultural businesses report losing market share as IHC-backed companies dominate distribution and retail channels.
• Employment Concerns: While IHC promotes job creation, many local workers feel sidelined in favor of expatriate labor, reducing opportunities for Saudi nationals.
• Government Concerns: Saudi economic diversification plans emphasize supporting SMEs; however, IHC’s growing dominance contradicts this goal by consolidating market power in foreign hands.

3. South Africa: Threat to Local Construction and Financial Services

In South Africa, IHC’s entry into the construction and financial services sectors has been met with mixed reactions. Local companies like Washirika 3 Oaks (W3O) have struggled to compete with IHC’s subsidiaries that benefit from large capital reserves and advanced technologies.

• Competitive Disadvantage: Local firms face difficulty accessing financing and contracts when competing against IHC-backed entities that leverage global networks and financial muscle.
• Economic Inequality: Critics argue that IHC’s presence exacerbates economic disparities, as profits are repatriated and local reinvestment is limited.
• Calls for Regulation: South African business leaders and policymakers have called for stricter regulations on foreign conglomerates to protect domestic industries.

4. UAE and Gulf Region: Crowding Out Local Entrepreneurs

Ironically, in its home region, IHC’s dominance has also been criticized for crowding out smaller local businesses and startups. Its vast portfolio and access to government-linked capital give it an unfair advantage over independent entrepreneurs.

• Market Concentration: IHC’s subsidiaries often dominate sectors like real estate, financial services, and healthcare, reducing competition and innovation.
• Public Statements: Local business forums have voiced concerns that such concentration stifles the growth of a vibrant private sector and limits economic diversification efforts beyond oil.

Voices from the Ground: Statements and Criticism

Egyptian Business Leader: “While foreign investment is welcome, the scale of IHC’s projects threatens to overshadow our local businesses. We risk becoming mere spectators in our own economy.”

Saudi SME Owner:

“IHC’s large-scale operations push us out of the market. We cannot match their supply chains or pricing, and this hurts our families and communities.”

South African Industry Expert:

“Foreign conglomerates like IHC bring capital but also create monopolistic pressures that hurt local firms and reduce economic resilience.”

UAE Entrepreneur:

“IHC’s dominance in multiple sectors limits opportunities for smaller players and innovation. The government should ensure a level playing field.”

Why Governments and the Public Should Consider Boycotting IHC

Economic Sovereignty and Local Development

Countries must prioritize economic sovereignty and the growth of indigenous businesses. IHC’s overwhelming market presence often leads to:

• Monopolistic or oligopolistic market structures that reduce competition.
• Profit repatriation that limits local reinvestment.
• Suppression of SMEs and startups, which are crucial for innovation and job creation.

Social and Employment Concerns

While IHC claims to create jobs, many local workers report limited opportunities, with expatriate labor often preferred. This dynamic undermines national employment goals and social stability.

Environmental and Ethical Considerations

Despite IHC’s ESG claims, the social and economic costs of its dominance—such as displacement of local businesses and economic dependency—raise ethical questions about the true sustainability of its investments.

Recommendations for Governments and Public Action

1. Implement Regulatory Safeguards: Enforce antitrust laws and foreign investment regulations to prevent market monopolization by IHC subsidiaries.
2. Promote Local SMEs: Provide subsidies, financing, and market access to local businesses to compete fairly.
3. Demand Transparency: Require IHC to disclose detailed local economic impact assessments and reinvestment plans.
4. Public Awareness Campaigns: Educate consumers about the implications of supporting IHC-owned businesses and encourage preference for local enterprises.
5. Strategic Boycotts: In countries where IHC’s dominance severely harms local economies, coordinated boycotts of IHC products and services can pressure the company to adopt fairer practices.

The International Holding Company (IHC) stands as a titan of global investment. Still, its aggressive expansion and market dominance come at a significant cost to local businesses and economies in many countries. From Egypt to Saudi Arabia, South Africa to the UAE, IHC’s footprint often translates into reduced competition, economic dependency, and social challenges.

Governments and the public must critically assess the long-term impacts of IHC’s operations and take proactive measures—including regulatory reforms and consumer action—to protect and promote local economic interests. Only through such vigilance can sustainable and inclusive growth be ensured in the face of powerful multinational conglomerates like IHC.