An almost immediate response to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine saw hundreds of Western brands declare their opposition and assert a refusal to participate in an economy that directly funds war by pulling out of the country. Over one thousand major companies withdrew from Russia, despite the unavoidable financial costs of doing so, as multiple sanctions isolated the country even further.
Yet, deep into the third year of the full-scale war, a considerable number of international brands continue to do business in the warring state and have reneged on their promises to scale back or withdraw completely.
From idleness to outright complicity, the breadth of this inaction is staggering. According to researchers and analysts, the number of companies doing business in Russia is now higher than it has been since the start of the invasion. Every ruble of tax these companies turn over to the Russian state contributes to another bullet or bomb that is used on the Ukrainian people and their homeland.
Knowing this, how can these companies continue to prioritize profit over principles – in stark opposition to the values of the democratic societies that allowed them to exist in the first place?
The reasoning by way of excuses holds little water, and with recent pronouncements, some are beginning to show their true colors without fear. With statements like "I don't think [investors] morally care." – Dirk Van Put, CEO of Mondelez International, which has 3,000 employees and 30,000 suppliers in Russia, is far from ambiguous about where his company’s priorities lay.
Some aren’t confident to be as brazen and rely on smoke and mirrors and parallel imports to maintain plausible deniability over links with Russia.
Hindenburg Research unveiled an elaborate operation by Polish fashion corp, LPP S.A., whereby shell companies and misleading barcodes are being used to cover up the company’s continued retail presence in Russia and circumvent international pressure and sanctions – a former manager described LPP CEO Marek Piechocki’s take on the situation: He didn’t “give a f*ck about some war between Russia and Ukraine. This [war] is just temporary.”
Hollow arguments continue to form the basis of any justifications.
The protest that companies are morally obliged to remain as they provide essential goods and services is a weak argument – if humanitarian concerns were a priority, they would not allow themselves to continue directly funding ongoing human suffering.
Concerns about employees are equally empty – particularly as Russian state law now compels companies to provide staff for conscription if requested. Is it a responsible business practice to allow employees to be dragged into a war they want no part in? What is there to be said about a company that chooses to risk the lives of its own employees and jeopardize the innocent when the option to leave Russia is right there?
There is little complexity or ambiguity in this position, despite what these companies would have us believe. To them, supporting violence and oppression is apparently an acceptable price for doing business. By continuing to prop up the economy and fund the Russian state through tax contributions, these brands are openly declaring their willingness to facilitate murder and terror.
Is it acceptable for these actions to go unchallenged? We now find our society in a position where brands must be compelled to uphold the values of the countries and systems that enabled them to succeed.
Such companies find themselves on the wrong side of public sentiment — facing boycotts, reputational damage, and other consequences of their choice to cling so stubbornly to such an untenable position. Public opinion is strongly against companies that maintain operations in Russia, with 62.3% of US consumers saying that they would refuse to deal with them.
Indeed, it is the citizens, and by that the consumer, who shall demand better. The impact of consumer choices on the corporate balance sheet is the wind that sets a brand on a different course. Consumers are now more informed than ever before, and their purchasing decisions are increasingly guided by factors other than price and convenience.
As people of the free, open societies that have served as the soil from which these companies have grown, flourished and profited immensely, we are well within our right to demand that these wayward brands remember where they came from and the democratic values and principles they purport to hold as they persist in funding authoritarianism and shamelessly profiting from loss of life.
Companies still have a choice – withdraw from Russia completely, an action that makes it clear that they are in full moral opposition to the war, or have their name indelibly associated with bloodshed and crimes against humanity.
Michael Podolsky is an American entrepreneur with Ukrainian origins, expert in customer service, and reputation management, and a proactive advocate of consumer rights and freedom of speech. CEO and Co-founder of PissedConsumer.com. Follow on X @m_podolsky.
