As we pass the second anniversary of the full scale invasion of Ukraine, the piece “Mondelez: Chief defends decision to stay in Russia” (Interview, February 23) raises fundamental concerns about the corporate and investor approach to continued business with Russia.
Chief executive Dirk Van de Put’s blunt candour defies the Cadbury history of social responsibility that Mondelez acquired (as Kraft) in 2010 and sours the taste even of their sugary Oreos.
If true, such cold amorality is chilling in the face of the multiple war crimes committed by Russia over the past two years. It is also dispiriting but not surprising as the responsibility of business to respect human rights consistent with the UN guiding principles on business and human rights is demonstrated inconsistently across industries. Even for investors who don’t “morally care”, as Van de Put suggests, this myopic view overlooks the galaxy of risks for companies who chose to stay in Russia while hundreds of others left.
These risks include indirect complicity in war crimes through the provision of employees and resources to the Russian army; the seizure of assets and imprisonment of employees, as recently seen in the unfortunate cases of Carlsberg and Danone (Report, July 20); and the payment of taxes that fund Vladimir Putin’s war against Ukraine.
It is also time for investors and multinational corporations such as Mondelez to recognise that they depend on the survival of the international rules-based order, even as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has taken a sledgehammer to its already battered remnants. They will care — if not morally then materially — if that order collapses partly under the weight of their icy indifference.
Now is the time for institutional asset owners and managers to say and show that they do care: that there is no international community or global economy without a dash of morality. Leaving Russia is one way now.
Bennett Freeman
Co-founder, B4Ukraine and Former Senior Vice President, Calvert Investments
Washington, DC, US
