Van de Put, CEO of chocolate manufacturer Mondelez, has defended 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 conceded that whilst the firm contributes tax in Russia that support the conflict, he believes pulling out would represent the incorrect decision. The confession 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 Western firms that have exited the country completely. Van de Put’s position has attracted criticism from over 70 Members of Parliament who have urged the company to break links with Moscow.
The Business Case for Staying
Van de Put has presented a pragmatic rationale for Mondelez’s continued presence in Russia, emphasising the protection of assets and employment. He contends that abandoning the Russian market would expose the company’s production plants 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 lesser evil than complete withdrawal. The chief executive emphasises that the company has already taken measures to limit its involvement, including stopping new capital expenditure and suspending advertising expenditure in the country.
The financial stakes are considerable, with Russia representing a key revenue contributor for the multinational food manufacturer. Beyond the substantial annual sales figures, Mondelez has invested heavily in Russian infrastructure over decades, creating thousands of jobs that would be threatened by an exit. Van de Put’s position reflects a broader tension faced by multinational corporations operating in strategically challenging 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 corporate profit maximisation.
- Withdrawal would expose the company to confiscation of manufacturing plants by Russian authorities
- Kremlin could continue selling Mondelez products independently to support conflict
- Thousands of Russian roles would be lost through total withdrawal from the market
- Company has previously restricted advertising and investment expenditure substantially
Political Pressure and Parliamentary Opposition
Mondelez’s decision to continue trading in Russia has drawn considerable scrutiny from Westminster, with more than 70 Members of Parliament voicing opposition through formal correspondence to the company’s executives. The All Party Parliamentary Group on Ukraine has been particularly vocal in its opposition, viewing the ongoing business operations as incompatible with the extent of civilian harm caused by the invasion. This political pressure demonstrates wider anxieties within the UK Parliament about the responsibility of UK-connected companies to take ethical stances on geopolitical conflicts, especially where civilian casualties and alleged war crimes are involved.
The parliamentary criticism highlights a core dispute about corporate responsibility during wartime. Opponents contend that business operations should not continue in countries involved in aggressive military campaigns, irrespective of the financial or operational reasons provided by corporate leadership. The debate highlights the tension between practical commercial concerns and moral imperatives, with MPs contending that no business justification can warrant continued involvement with a regime responsible for widespread destruction and loss of life. For Mondelez, the political pressure constitutes a reputational challenge that extends beyond financial performance or operational effectiveness.
The Parliamentary Response
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 justified under any acceptable definition of standard commercial conduct. The letter signed by more than 70 MPs emphasises the scale of the human suffering, referencing both civilian deaths and the reported abduction of thousands of Ukrainian children. This coordinated parliamentary action demonstrates significant cross-party consensus on the issue, suggesting that Mondelez faces ongoing political resistance to its Russian strategy from various sections within the House of Commons.
Operations in Ukraine: Steadfastness Under Fire
Whilst Mondelez encounters escalating scrutiny over its Russian operations, the company has adopted a notably distinct approach in Ukraine, where it keeps investing despite the profound effects of the continuous warfare. The chocolate and confectionery company operates two production facilities in Ukraine—one in Trostyanets, positioned dangerously near to the Russian border, and another in Vyshhorod close to the capital Kyiv. Both facilities have sustained direct attacks, with Van de Put disclosing that one plant has been struck twice and reconstructed twice, each reconstruction demanding tens of millions of pounds. Despite these exceptional difficulties, Mondelez has vowed to restore its Ukrainian operations each time they suffer damage, displaying a degree of sustained dedication that contrasts sharply with its cautious stance in Russia.
The actual situation of operating in an conflict zone became immediately clear during Van de Put’s interview with the BBC, when he disclosed that an workplace had been hit that morning in question. Though he affirmed that all personnel stayed safe, the incident underscores the perpetual danger confronting Mondelez workers operating in Ukraine. The corporate response has been to raise compensation for its Ukrainian employees at the start of the conflict and sustain a promise never to cut jobs, despite logistical challenges. This approach shows a fundamentally different business approach in Ukraine versus Russia, where Mondelez has suspended new spending and marketing spending. The financial and human costs of keeping Ukrainian business running are substantial, yet the company regards its sustained involvement as vital for assisting the nation and its people during their darkest hour.
| 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 |
Dedication to Ukraine’s Workforce
Mondelez has shown concrete support with its Ukrainian employees through firm financial and workforce commitments made at the start of large-scale fighting. The company raised compensation for all Ukrainian employees and has pledged categorically that it will not decrease employment levels, irrespective of operational challenges caused by armed conflict. Van de Put emphasised that these commitments represent more than superficial actions—they reflect authentic engagement in the country’s economic outlook. By pressing ahead with rebuilding infrastructure, maintain employment, and increase compensation, Mondelez signals its belief in Ukraine’s future restoration and its resolve to aid the nation’s economic reconstruction together with its employees.
The Larger Organisational Challenge
Mondelez’s decision to continue operating in Russia whilst maintaining substantial Ukrainian operations illustrates the profound ethical and commercial tensions facing multinational corporations during armed conflict. The company’s position—neither completely exiting nor actively participating—reflects a pragmatic middle ground that pleases neither critics nor stakeholders entirely. Van de Put’s recognition that Mondelez’s Russian tax payments indirectly fund the war effort demonstrates the uncomfortable reality that corporate neutrality may be unattainable in such circumstances. The chief executive’s candid admission of dissatisfaction with this situation exposes genuine moral discomfort, yet he maintains that abandoning Russia would ultimately prove counterproductive to both employees and wider business interests.
The divergence between Mondelez’s strategy in Russia and Ukraine underscores how international tensions shape business decisions. Whilst the company has frozen investments and marketing activities in Russia, it has at the same time raised salaries for Ukrainian staff and pledged ongoing rebuilding initiatives. This unequal positioning seeks to reconcile financial viability with ethical obligations, yet draws charges of inconsistency from legislative critics and Ukrainian supporters. The core issue before Mondelez—and indeed all global companies conducting business within areas of conflict—remains unresolved: can companies truly stay impartial when their operations financially sustain belligerent nations, or does continued presence fundamentally amount to implicit involvement irrespective of declared aims?
- Mondelez obtains £745m–£1.4bn each year from its Russian business since the 2022 invasion
- Over 70 MPs have officially called on the company end all Russian business ties
- Ukrainian plants have been rebuilt on two occasions after military strikes totalling millions of pounds