On a recent afternoon in Moscow, shoppers continued to purchase Cadbury chocolate bars from store shelves—a routine act that contrasts sharply with the broader geopolitical tensions surrounding the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Over a year into the conflict, some Western companies, including Mondelēz International—the U.S. owner of Cadbury—have maintained operations within Russia. This ongoing business presence has provoked significant political, public, and activist scrutiny due to concerns about whether such commercial activity inadvertently supports the Russian government’s war effort.
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, hundreds of international companies suspended or ended their activities in Russia amid mounting pressure from governments and the public. However, certain multinational corporations, particularly in the food and consumer goods sectors, opted to maintain at least partial operations in Russia. Critics argue that the tax revenue generated by these companies contributes to financing Moscow’s military actions, with Ukraine’s anti-corruption agency even labeling some businesses as “international sponsors of war.”
Mondelēz International, which acquired Cadbury in 2010, has come under intensified criticism for its decision to sustain its Russian market presence despite the conflict. A coalition of over 70 British Members of Parliament and peers sent a pointed letter to Mondelēz CEO Dirk Van de Put, warning that continuing operations in Russia effectively provides a financial lifeline to the Kremlin while damaging Cadbury's historic reputation for ethical business practices. The letter highlighted Cadbury’s Quaker origins and its legacy of social responsibility, noting that such principles are seemingly compromised by the parent company's stance.
These lawmakers demanded that Mondelēz immediately suspend its Russian operations and disclose how much it has contributed in taxes and fees to the Russian government. In a symbolic gesture, copies of the letter were also sent to UK football clubs sponsored by Cadbury to encourage reconsideration of partnerships with the brand amid its association with Russia.
Mondelēz, whose Russian revenue is estimated at $1.4 billion annually and whose tax payments to the Russian government amount to around $62 million, defends its position by emphasising the complexities of withdrawal. A company spokesperson told KillerStartups that the situation is nuanced and that “there are no easy decisions” involved. They explained that a full exit could result in Russian state authorities or local operators taking over the business, thereby potentially increasing the flow of funds into the Kremlin’s coffers.
In addition to this pragmatic argument, Mondelēz stresses its commitment to supporting the civilians dependent on its products, stating that millions of Russians who have no control over their government’s actions rely on access to everyday food and snacks. The company also pointed to the approximately 3,000 employees and over 10,000 local farmers interconnected with its Russian supply chain whose livelihoods are impacted by continued operations.
Other corporations have expressed similar rationales. Swiss food conglomerate Nestlé, for example, continues to distribute “essential and basic foods” such as infant formula and cereals in Russia while suspending the sale of non-essential items like KitKat bars, citing responsibilities to customers and employees in the region.
Despite these corporate justifications, the backlash has been robust. UK Member of Parliament Bob Seely, involved in a cross-party Ukraine group, stated, “I think any company doing business in Russia without good reason should suffer reputational damage. They are helping fascism, pure and simple. Anyone who makes a profit in Russia is funding a war machine that is killing in Ukraine.” Ukraine’s government has publicly branded companies including Mondelēz, Unilever, and PepsiCo as “international sponsors of war,” a label designed to compel these firms to cease operations in Russia.
In Scandinavia, the fallout has included consumer boycotts, notably against Mondelēz-owned brands like Freia chocolates in Norway, temporarily removed from store shelves amid the protest. Vinzenz Gruber, Mondelēz’s Europe president, expressed frustration at the firm being “singled out” while other companies remain active in Russia. However, observers view this as indicative of a larger reckoning with Western companies’ presence in the Russian market.
Investor groups have also weighed in. A Danish pension fund that invests in Mondelēz welcomed recent moves to scale back operations but encouraged further reconsideration of the company's involvement in Russia. Advocacy groups have increased efforts to monitor corporate actions and lobby governments for stricter measures. A British-based coalition supporting Ukraine, B4Ukraine, declared that “Cadbury must not be associated with Russia’s war crimes, and UK companies must not be allowed to do business in or with Russia,” criticising the contradiction between the brands’ global goodwill and their inadvertent role in funding the war.
Other multinational companies remain in a similarly contentious position. Mars continues to sell pet food and confectionery, and PepsiCo produces essential dairy products in Russia despite suspending sales of Pepsi cola. French retailers Auchan and Leroy Merlin initially kept stores open on humanitarian grounds but later reconsidered amid intensifying scrutiny. In contrast, UK-based Unilever, after enduring prolonged criticism, agreed in 2024 to sell its entire Russian division, relinquishing its brands such as Dove and Magnum ice cream to a local company due to the reputational damage.
The evolving situation exemplifies the tension between commercial interests, ethical considerations, and geopolitical realities faced by Western companies navigating the Russian market during ongoing conflict. Each firm’s decision to stay or exit is being rigorously evaluated by policymakers, consumers, investors, and advocacy organisations alike.
Claire Dawson, reporting for KillerStartups, observes that Western companies’ continued business activities in Russia amid the war in Ukraine place them at a crossroads where “profit and principle are increasingly at odds.” Governments and grassroots campaigns are applying diverse forms of pressure—ranging from parliamentary appeals to consumer boycotts—in an effort to influence corporate behaviour.
For Mondelēz International and its Cadbury brand, the choices made now will have implications that extend far beyond immediate financial results. The current debates and decisions will likely shape how these companies are remembered in relation to the ethical challenges posed by operating during a time of hostilities. As the conflict endures without resolution, the international community continues to closely monitor the intersection of commerce and conscience in this high-stakes environment.
Source: Noah Wire Services