The continued operation of multinational FMCG companies in Russia amidst the ongoing conflict in Ukraine is under intense scrutiny.
- Unilever’s commitment to remain in Russia, contributing significantly to the Russian economy, has led to its controversial designation as a ‘sponsor of war’.
- Despite announcing reduced operations, P&G maintains its business presence in Russia, producing various household products.
- Nestlé faces potential challenges as its Russian employees could be conscripted, despite declarations of limited business activity in the country.
- Bacardi and Shell have both encountered criticism for their continued commercial activities in Russia, despite initial promises to limit operations.
Amid increasing pressure, multinational FMCG corporations continue their operations in Russia, raising international concerns. Unilever’s new CEO, Hein Schumacher, faces criticism over the company’s sustained business interests in Russia, significantly bolstering the Russian economy with an estimated £579m annual contribution. This has led Ukraine to label Unilever as an ‘international sponsor of war’, reflecting the complex ramifications of its decision to remain.
P&G had previously indicated intentions to scale back in Russia, limiting its product range to essential health and hygiene items. However, recent reports illustrate that significant operations are still underway, including the production of detergents and Gillette razors. P&G’s corporate conduct policies highlight ethical considerations in their operations, though the extent of these is questioned by observers.
Nestlé, while purportedly narrowing its Russian market activities, continues to sell products made locally. This includes pet foods and infant nutrition items, despite statements supporting Ukraine. The reality that over 7,000 of its employees in Russia might face conscription underscores the operational and ethical dilemmas faced by global businesses working within Russian jurisdiction.
Bacardi’s products remain accessible in Russia, contrary to its stated pause in imports and marketing. The Ukrainian National Agency on Corruption and Prevention has criticised Bacardi, placing it on a list of Kremlin war sponsors, citing its ongoing tax contributions to Russia. The company’s response focuses on prioritising employee welfare amidst the conflict.
Shell has continued to commercially engage with Russian LNG exports, attributing these actions to binding contractual obligations. Nevertheless, this has drawn condemnation from Ukrainian officials for indirectly supporting the Russian war effort. These provisions continue despite UK governmental sanctions against energy transactions with Russia.
The ongoing commercial engagement of these companies in Russia highlights the intricate balance between legal commitments and ethical considerations amid geopolitical tensions.
