Dirk Van de Put, chief executive of chocolate manufacturer Mondelez, has justified the company’s contentious choice to continue operations in Russia despite the continuing war in Ukraine. In an interview with the BBC, Van de Put acknowledged that whilst the firm pays taxes in Russia that help fund the conflict, he believes withdrawing would represent the incorrect decision. The admission comes as Mondelez keeps producing £745m-£1.4bn each year from its operations in Russia following the full-scale invasion in 2022, putting the company in conflict with many companies in the West that have withdrawn from the country completely. Van de Put’s stance has drawn criticism from over 70 Members of Parliament who have urged the company to sever ties with Moscow.
The Business Argument for Staying
Van de Put has articulated a pragmatic rationale for Mondelez’s continued presence in Russia, focused on the protection of assets and employment. He contends that abandoning the Russian market would expose the company’s factory operations to confiscation by the Kremlin, potentially allowing the state to take control of manufacturing and continue selling Mondelez products to fund military operations. This argument suggests that retaining management control, albeit with restrictions, represents a preferable alternative than complete withdrawal. The chief executive emphasises that the company has already taken measures to limit its involvement, including halting new investments and suspending advertising expenditure in the country.
The financial stakes are significant, with Russia representing a significant revenue stream for the multinational food manufacturer. Beyond the significant annual turnover figures, Mondelez has made substantial investments in Russian infrastructure over many years, creating thousands of jobs that would be jeopardised by an exit. Van de Put’s position highlights a broader tension confronting multinational corporations operating in geopolitically sensitive regions: the competing demands of shareholder value, employee welfare, and ethical responsibility. Whilst recognising the discomfort of contributing tax revenue to a warring nation, he frames the decision as one made in the interests of workers rather than profit maximisation.
- Withdrawal would threaten confiscation of manufacturing plants by Moscow officials
- Kremlin could keep distributing Mondelez products on its own to finance conflict
- Thousands of Russian roles would be eliminated through complete market exit
- Company has previously limited investment and advertising spending considerably
Political Pressure and Parliament’s Scrutiny
Mondelez’s choice to continue trading in Russia has drawn considerable scrutiny from Westminster, with more than 70 MPs expressing their disapproval through formal correspondence to the company’s executives. The All Party Parliamentary Group on Ukraine has been especially outspoken in its resistance, viewing the continued commercial presence as at odds with the scale of human suffering caused by the invasion. This parliamentary pressure demonstrates wider anxieties within the UK Parliament about the responsibility of UK-connected companies to take ethical stances on international disputes, especially where civilian casualties and alleged war crimes are involved.
The political scrutiny highlights a fundamental disagreement about business accountability during wartime. Critics argue that business operations should not continue in countries involved in military aggression, irrespective of the operational or financial justifications offered by corporate leadership. The discussion underscores the tension between pragmatic business considerations and moral imperatives, with MPs contending that no commercial rationale can warrant continued involvement with a regime responsible for extensive destruction and casualties. For Mondelez, the political scrutiny constitutes a reputation risk that goes beyond financial metrics or operational efficiency.
The Parliamentary Reply
Alex Sobel, chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Ukraine, articulated the parliamentary position with particular force, stating that ongoing activities in Russia cannot be defended under any reasonable interpretation of standard commercial conduct. The letter signed by over 70 MPs highlights the scale of the human suffering, citing both civilian deaths and the alleged kidnapping of numerous Ukrainian children. This joint parliamentary effort reveals substantial multi-party agreement on the issue, indicating that Mondelez faces sustained political opposition to its Russian strategy from various sections within the House of Commons.
Operations in Ukraine: Resilience Under Fire
Whilst Mondelez grapples with mounting criticism over its Russian operations, the company has taken a markedly different approach in Ukraine, where it maintains investment despite the severe consequences of the ongoing conflict. The chocolate and confectionery producer operates two factory sites in Ukraine—one in Trostyanets, positioned dangerously near to the Russian border, and another in Vyshhorod near the capital Kyiv. Both facilities have withstood military bombardment, with Van de Put noting that one plant has been struck twice and reconstructed twice, each reconstruction requiring tens of millions of pounds. Despite these remarkable obstacles, Mondelez has pledged to reconstruct its Ukrainian operations every single time they suffer damage, exhibiting a level of long-term commitment that stands in stark contrast with its cautious posture in Russia.
The truth of operating in an conflict zone became immediately clear during Van de Put’s interview with the BBC, when he stated that an workplace had been damaged that very morning. Though he verified that all employees were unharmed, the incident demonstrates the constant risk faced by Mondelez staff operating in Ukraine. The company’s response has been to increase wages significantly for its Ukrainian employees at the beginning of the conflict and maintain a pledge never to decrease staffing levels, regardless of business interruptions. This approach shows a fundamentally different corporate philosophy in Ukraine in contrast with Russia, where Mondelez has suspended new spending and promotional budgets. The economic and personnel costs of maintaining Ukrainian operations are significant, yet the company regards its continued presence as vital for backing Ukraine and its citizens during their greatest hour of need.
| Location | Impact |
|---|---|
| Trostyanets Plant | Near Russian border; has sustained direct military strikes requiring costly reconstruction efforts |
| Vyshhorod Plant | Close to Kyiv; operational but exposed to ongoing conflict and security risks |
| Office Buildings | Hit during active conflict; staff safety prioritised with doubled wages and employment guarantees |
Support for Ukrainian Workforce
Mondelez has displayed concrete support with its Ukrainian employees through firm financial and workforce commitments made at the outbreak of full-scale conflict. The company doubled salaries for all Ukrainian workers and has unequivocally stated that it will not reduce its workforce, regardless of business disruptions caused by armed conflict. Van de Put highlighted that these commitments go beyond symbolic gestures—they reflect real commitment in the country’s future. By pressing ahead with rebuilding infrastructure, preserve jobs, and boost pay, Mondelez demonstrates its belief in Ukraine’s long-term reconstruction and its determination to support the nation’s rebuilding efforts together with its employees.
The Larger Organisational Issue
Mondelez’s decision to remain operational in Russia whilst sustaining significant Ukrainian operations exemplifies the profound ethical and commercial pressures facing multinational corporations during armed conflict. The company’s position—neither fully withdrawing nor enthusiastically engaging—reflects a pragmatic middle ground that pleases neither detractors nor interested parties entirely. Van de Put’s acknowledgement that Mondelez’s Russian tax contributions help finance the war effort demonstrates the uncomfortable reality that corporate neutrality may be unattainable in such circumstances. The chief executive’s frank acknowledgement of dissatisfaction with this situation reveals genuine moral discomfort, yet he maintains that leaving Russia would ultimately prove counterproductive to both employees and wider business interests.
The difference between Mondelez’s strategy in Russia and Ukraine underscores how geopolitical circumstances influence organisational choices. Whilst the company has frozen investments and advertising in Russia, it has simultaneously raised salaries for Ukrainian staff and committed to continuous reconstruction programmes. This unequal positioning endeavours to reconcile business sustainability with social responsibility, yet invites charges of inconsistency from legislative critics and Ukrainian advocates. The central question facing Mondelez—and indeed all global companies conducting business within conflict zones—persists unanswered: can businesses actually maintain neutrality when their business practices support combatant countries, or does ongoing operations fundamentally amount to implicit involvement irrespective of declared aims?
- Mondelez derives £745m–£1.4bn each year from Russian operations following the 2022 invasion
- Over 70 MPs have formally requested the company terminate all Russian business ties
- Ukrainian plants have been rebuilt twice following military strikes totalling tens of millions