Van de Put, CEO of Cadbury chocolate-maker Mondelez, has defended the company’s contentious decision to maintain business activities in Russia despite the ongoing war in Ukraine. In an interview with the BBC, Van de Put conceded that whilst the firm contributes tax in Russia that help fund the conflict, he believes withdrawing would represent the wrong decision. The confession comes as Mondelez keeps producing £745m-£1.4bn annually from its Russian business since Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022, putting the company in conflict with many Western firms that have withdrawn from the country completely. Van de Put’s position has drawn criticism from over 70 Members of Parliament who have urged the company to break links with Moscow.
The Business Case for Remaining
Van de Put has outlined 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 factory operations to confiscation by the Kremlin, potentially allowing the state to commandeer production and continue selling Mondelez products to fund military operations. This argument suggests that retaining management control, albeit with restrictions, represents a more acceptable option than complete withdrawal. The chief executive emphasises that the company has already introduced actions to limit its involvement, including ceasing fresh investment and suspending advertising expenditure in the country.
The financial stakes are substantial, with Russia representing a significant revenue stream 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 demonstrates a broader tension experienced by multinational corporations operating in politically complex regions: the competing demands of shareholder value, employee welfare, and ethical responsibility. Whilst accepting 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 production facilities by Moscow officials
- Kremlin could continue selling Mondelez products without the company to finance conflict
- Thousands of Russian jobs would be eliminated through complete market exit
- Company has previously restricted advertising and investment expenditure considerably
Political Pressure and Parliamentary Opposition
Mondelez’s decision to continue trading in Russia has drawn substantial scrutiny from Westminster, with more than 70 MPs voicing opposition through formal correspondence to the company’s executives. The All Party Parliamentary Group on Ukraine has been particularly vocal in its resistance, viewing the continued commercial presence as incompatible with the scale of human suffering 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 deaths and suspected violations of international law are involved.
The political scrutiny highlights a core dispute about business accountability during wartime. Opponents contend that business operations should not continue in nations engaged in aggressive military campaigns, irrespective of the operational or financial justifications offered by company executives. The debate highlights the conflict between practical commercial concerns and ethical obligations, with parliamentarians arguing that no commercial rationale can justify sustained engagement with a regime responsible for widespread destruction and loss of life. For Mondelez, the political scrutiny constitutes a reputational challenge that extends beyond financial metrics or operational effectiveness.
The Parliamentary Reply
Alex Sobel, head of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Ukraine, expressed 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 endorsed by over 70 MPs highlights the extent of the humanitarian crisis, citing both civilian deaths and the alleged kidnapping of thousands of Ukrainian children. This joint parliamentary effort demonstrates substantial multi-party agreement on the issue, indicating that Mondelez encounters sustained political opposition to its Russian strategy from various sections within the House of Commons.
Operations in the Ukrainian region: Steadfastness Amid Conflict
Whilst Mondelez encounters mounting criticism over its Russian operations, the company has taken a notably distinct approach in Ukraine, where it keeps investing despite the profound effects of the protracted war. The confectionery and chocolate manufacturer operates two manufacturing plants in Ukraine—one in Trostyanets, positioned dangerously near to the Russian border, and another in Vyshhorod adjacent to the capital Kyiv. Both facilities have endured direct attacks, with Van de Put noting that one plant has been damaged twice and restored twice, each reconstruction costing tens of millions of pounds. Despite these extraordinary challenges, Mondelez has pledged to reconstruct its Ukrainian operations every single time they incur damage, displaying a level of long-term commitment that differs markedly with its cautious posture in Russia.
The truth of working in an conflict zone became starkly apparent during Van de Put’s conversation with the BBC, when he revealed that an office building had been damaged that morning in question. Though he verified that all employees were unharmed, the incident highlights the constant risk confronting Mondelez staff operating in Ukraine. The corporate response has been to increase wages significantly for its Ukrainian staff at the beginning of the conflict and maintain a pledge never to reduce headcount, irrespective of business interruptions. This approach shows a fundamentally different business approach in Ukraine versus Russia, where Mondelez has suspended new spending and advertising expenditure. The economic and personnel costs of sustaining operations in Ukraine are substantial, yet the company views its ongoing operations as essential to backing Ukraine and its citizens during their time of greatest 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 |
Commitment to Ukrainian Workforce
Mondelez has demonstrated 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 workers and has firmly committed that it will not cut staff numbers, irrespective of operational disruptions caused by military action. Van de Put highlighted that these commitments go beyond token measures—they reflect authentic engagement in the country’s long-term prospects. By maintaining efforts to reconstruct infrastructure, preserve jobs, and boost pay, Mondelez conveys its belief in Ukraine’s future restoration and its determination to support the nation’s economic reconstruction together with its employees.
The Broader Industry Challenge
Mondelez’s decision to remain operational in Russia whilst sustaining significant Ukrainian operations illustrates the deep ethical and commercial pressures facing multinational corporations during military conflict. The company’s position—neither completely exiting nor actively participating—reflects a practical 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 frank acknowledgement of dissatisfaction with this situation reveals genuine moral discomfort, yet he maintains that leaving Russia would ultimately be detrimental to both employees and wider business interests.
The divergence between Mondelez’s position in Russia and Ukraine highlights how geopolitical circumstances shape corporate decision-making. Whilst the company has suspended funding and marketing activities in Russia, it has concurrently raised salaries for Ukrainian staff and committed to perpetual reconstruction efforts. This asymmetrical strategy seeks to align financial viability with humanitarian responsibility, yet invites charges of inconsistency from political opponents and Ukrainian advocates. The core issue confronting Mondelez—and indeed all multinational enterprises conducting business within war-affected regions—remains unresolved: can businesses actually maintain neutrality when their commercial activities fund warring states, or does sustained involvement fundamentally amount to tacit support regardless of professed commitments?
- Mondelez obtains £745m–£1.4bn each year from its Russian business following the 2022 invasion
- Over 70 MPs have officially called on the company end all ties to Russian operations
- Ukrainian plants have been rebuilt twice following military strikes totalling tens of millions