On a recent afternoon in Moscow, shoppers casually pluck Cadbury chocolate bars from store shelves – a familiar comfort that belies an uncomfortable reality.
Over a year into Russia’s war against Ukraine, some Western companies are stillopen for businessin Russia, even as many of their peers pulled out in protest.
This paradox has put brands like Cadbury’s U.S. owner, Mondelēz International, in the crosshairs of a growing political and public backlash. Lawmakers, activists, and consumers are asking tough questions about why these companies continue to operate under President Vladimir Putin’s regime and whether profits are trumping principles. It’s a collision of commerce and conscience playing out in real time, with corporate reputations and ethical legacies hanging in the balance.
War tests corporate resolve
Why would any Western brand stay in Russia while the shells fall on Ukraine?
It’s a question echoing from parliamentary halls in London to coffee shops in Kyiv. In the weeks following Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, hundreds of global companies hastily scaled back or exited their Russian operations under intense public and government pressure.
Yet a notable contingent – from food conglomerates to consumer-goods giants – chose to remain in some capacity.
Their continued presence has not gone unnoticed. Ukraine’s anti-corruption agency has even branded certain holdouts as“international sponsors of war”for effectively providing economic lifelines to Moscow’s war effort.
Each ruble of tax revenue these firms generate in Russia, critics argue, helps fund a conflict that has killed thousands of civilians. For many executives, the decision to stay has become a high-stakes balancing act between fulfilling business obligations and facing moral outrage back home.
Cadbury’s dilemma in the spotlight
“By remaining in Russia, Cadbury’s owner is providing a financial bloodline to the Kremlin and eroding Cadbury’s name,” a group of over 70 British MPs and peers warned in a blunt letter to Mondelēz CEO Dirk Van de Put.
The transatlantic confectionery titan – which acquired Cadbury in 2010 – has found itself at the center of a firestorm.
The lawmakers’ letter, coordinated by Labour MP Alex Sobel, decried howCadbury’s ethical rootshave been upended by its parent company’s Russia stance. Cadbury was founded by Quakers famed for principled business practices and even built a model village for its workers in Bournville.
Now, politicians lament, that legacy of social responsibility is at risk of melting away.“Continuing to operate in a nation responsible for the deaths of countless Ukrainian civilians…cannot be justified under any definition of ‘business as usual,’”the MPs wrote.
Their demands are explicit: Mondelēz must halt its Russian operations and come clean on exactly how much it has been contributing in taxes and fees to Putin’s government. In a symbolic twist, copies of the letter were even sent to UK football clubs sponsored by Cadbury, urging them to reconsider ties with a brand tarnished by association.
For Mondelēz, which derived an estimated $1.4 billion in revenue from Russia last year – yielding around $62 million in taxes for Moscow’s coffers – the message from London could not be clearer: stop feeding thewar machineor face escalating outrage.
Business as usual – or necessary evil?
Mondelēz insists that the situation is not black-and-white.“Since the beginning of the war, we have condemned the brutal aggression against Ukraine,”a company spokesperson said, emphasizing that there are“no easy decisions”when it comes to operating in Russia.
The corporation argues that a full retreat might do more harm than good. If Cadbury and its sister brands were yanked out of Russia, they contend, the vacuum could simply be filled by local operators – or even seized outright by the Russian state – withno changein the Kremlin’s war footing.“If we suspended full operations, we would risk turning over our business to another party who could use the full proceeds for their own interests,”the Mondelēz spokesperson warned, alluding to the prospect of Russian authorities or buyers taking control.
Company officials also highlight humanitarian considerations. Millions of ordinary Russians have no say in their government’s war, yet they rely on everyday products. In Mondelēz’s case, that includes basic food items and snacks.Cutting off that supply,the argument goes,would punish civilians rather than the regime.
The firm notes it has 3,000 employees and over 10,000 local farmers in its Russian supply chain whose livelihoods depend on its continued operations. This rationale – essentiallystaying to sustain innocents– is one echoed by other multinationals.
Swiss food giant Nestlé, for instance, decided to keep selling “essential and basic foods” in Russia (like infant formula and cereals) even as it halted KitKat bars and other treats, citing responsibility to feed the population and support its 7,000 Russian staff. It’s a moral tightrope for these companies: attempting to honor duties to consumers and workers on one side, while being accused of abetting a warmongering government on the other.
Backlash from all sides
Despite corporate assurances, the court of public opinion is handing down tough judgments.“I think any company doing business in Russia without good reason should suffer reputational damage,”says Bob Seely, a UK Member of Parliament active in the cross-party Ukraine group.“They are helping fascism, pure and simple. Anyone who makes a profit in Russia is funding a war machine that is killing in Ukraine”.
Such blunt rhetoric underlines thereputational perilfor Western firms seen as outliers. In 2023, Ukraine’s government took the unprecedented step of officially listing companies like Mondelēz, Unilever, PepsiCo and others as “international sponsors of war” – a very public shaming intended to spur exits.
That designation prompted an uproar in Scandinavia, where several major businesses and even the national airline SAS announced boycotts of Mondelēz-owned brands in protest. Norwegian consumers woke up to find Freia chocolates (a beloved local brand under the Cadbury umbrella) temporarily pulled from some store shelves amid the furor.
Mondelēz’s Europe president Vinzenz Gruber bemoaned that his company was being“singled out”while many peers quietly remained in Russia. But to outraged customers and activists, that only raised a larger point: if so many household-name brands are still in Russia, perhaps a broader consumer reckoning is overdue.
Beyond public boycotts,investors and watchdog groupsare also raising pressure. One Danish pension fund invested in Mondelēz cautiously welcomed the firm’s recent steps to “downscale” its Russian business, but said bluntly it“encourage[s] them to reconsider their operations in the country”because it is“skeptical about the need for most companies to be present in Russia”.
From street protests to social media campaigns, the message is mounting: Western companies can no longer fly under the radar while operating in Russia’s economy.
Peers, pressures, and the road ahead
Mondelēz is far from alone in this fraught territory. American snack-maker Mars still sells pet food and confectionery in Russia. U.S. beverage giant PepsiCo continues to produce essentials like dairy products even after stopping Pepsi cola sales.
French retailer Auchan and home-improvement chain Leroy Merlin kept their Russian stores open, citing humanitarian duty to locals, until growing scrutiny forced a rethink. Each company has its own calculation – a mix of ethical, financial, and legal factors. Some are now reversing course.
After failing to join the initial exodus, UK-basedUnileverendured more than a year of criticism for selling Dove soap, ice cream and deodorant to Russians. In 2024, under unrelenting pressure and the cloud of war-sponsor infamy, Unilever agreed to sell its entire Russian division to a local firm.
The maker of Dove and Magnum ice cream effectively decided that the reputational cost was too high to continue. Campaigners point to that U-turn as proof that sustained public and political pressure can compel multinationals to do what moral appeals alone could not.
Meanwhile, advocacy coalitions like B4Ukraine are tracking companies’ every move and lobbying governments to tighten the screws.“Cadbury must not be associated with Russia’s war crimes, and UK companies must not be allowed to do business in or with Russia,”admonished one British-based Ukraine support group, calling out the contradiction between beloved Western brands and their involuntary role in funding Putin’s war.
As the war grinds on with no end in sight, calls for divestment and strict ethical lines in commerce are growing louder. Western firms still in Russia face a defining choice:dig in and weather the backlash, or cut ties and uphold their values– potentially at great cost.
Final thoughts
Claire Dawson, reporting on this unfolding saga, finds a landscape where profit and principle are increasingly at odds.
Western corporations operating in Russia amid the Ukraine war are learning that no justification – be it feeding families or protecting employees – can fully shield them from moral scrutiny. Governments and grassroots movements alike are leveraging every tool of persuasion, from letters in Parliament to boycotts at the checkout aisle.
For companies like Mondelēz, the owner of Cadbury, the stakes extend beyond quarterly earnings. It’s about an enduring reputation and an ethical legacy: are they on the wrong side of history, or simply stuck in an impossible position?
The coming months may well determine how these corporations are remembered long after the last chocolate bar is sold – as principled or profiting, accountable or complicit. Each decision to stay or leave Russia is writing a new chapter in the annals of corporate ethics amid conflict, and the world is watching closely.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.