Cadbury's owner's ethics test: time to exit Russia for good
4 min read
Cadbury recently rolled out a marketing campaign showing how to split their chocolate fairly.
But the company’s stance on fairness doesn’t look like it means anything when its owner, US snacking giant Mondelez International, continues to operate in Russia, bolstering the Kremlin’s military budget. Sweet ads, bitter reality: While British taxpayers financially support Ukraine and open their homes to Ukrainian families, the name of the beloved British chocolate brand—once synonymous with decent and ethical business—is being eroded by an owner that puts profit before principles to keep its market share in Russia. That's why, along with 71 MPs and Peers, I am calling on Mondelez to exit Russia and stop funding the war.
US-based Mondelez is one of the most egregious cases of companies that continue to do business as usual in Russia. In 2023, it reportedly generated around $1.4 billion in revenue in Russia, where it operates three factories, and paid $62 million in profit taxes, placing it among the top 20 foreign companies contributing to the Kremlin’s militarized budget. This money could fund nearly 1,250 Shahed kamikaze drones, which Russia uses daily to attack Ukraine's critical and civilian infrastructure. In response, the Ukrainian government has branded the company an ‘international sponsor of war,’ prompting boycotts from big-name Scandinavian brands and national football associations. Buckingham Palace stripped Cadbury of its royal warrant in December.
By keeping its business in Russia, Mondelez risks more than just reputational damage. Under Russian law, the company must support the army by mobilising eligible employees and providing materials deemed essential to the Russian war machine. This is the same army responsible for over 165,000 war crimes in Ukraine.
Shareholders have already voiced frustration over the company's lack of transparency, and for good reason. While the snack giant claims it is merely an observer to external risks—such as potential expropriation—its continued presence supports a high-risk, high-stakes militarized economy. According to the B4Ukraine Coalition, over 60 per cent of US companies have already left Russia. So why has Mondelez chosen to stay?
Mondelez leadership claims they provide essential goods to the Russian population, implying the company has a responsibility to continue operations as a "food provider". This argument is disingenuous at best—its Russian operations produce non-essential goods like chocolates, cookies, chewing gum, and lollipops. Russia is self-sufficient in staple food production, and sanctions do not restrict access to humanitarian goods. Mondelez’s participation in the Russian market is not about feeding people; it’s about feeding profits.
The company’s claims of concern for its 2,500 employees in Russia also fall apart under scrutiny. Russia's labor market is tight, with unemployment at record lows, meaning affected workers have ample alternative job opportunities. Mondelez has no excuse for inaction.
The company admits its profitability in Russia remains "above historical levels." This fact underscores the uncomfortable truth: the sweets maker prioritizes financial gain over fundamental human rights, democratic values and security. Even while acknowledging restrictions on fund transfers, CEO Dirk Van de Put has stated that Mondelez has been able to repatriate money from Russia, ensuring that war-tainted revenues continue to support the broader business. This reckless gamble exposes the company to escalating legal, financial, and reputational risks.
By continuing operations in Russia, Cadbury’s owner sends a dangerous signal to the corporate world—that profitability trumps responsibility. This decision undermines the global effort to isolate Russia’s war economy and instead contributes to prolonging a conflict that has already claimed thousands of innocent lives.
So what can be done? Investors have a key role to play here. Recently, a new shareholder proposal demanding greater transparency on Russia has emerged, and investors must demonstrate that they will not tolerate continued complicity, debunking CEO Van de Put’s assertion that shareholders "do not morally care" about the company’s continued business in Russia.
Leading UK football clubs currently sponsored by Cadbury—such as Arsenal, Birmingham, Celtic, Chelsea, Glasgow Rangers, Leeds United, Liverpool, Manchester United, and Tottenham Hotspur—should also reconsider and terminate these partnerships due to Mondelēz’s continued operations in Russia.
Consumers can also choose to spend their hard-earned pounds elsewhere. There are plenty of other Kremlin-free brands to buy from.
Combined, these actions should send Cadbury’s owner the clear message that it needs to exit Russia now. Decisive exits from the Russian market by 470 US companies—such as Unilever, Kellogg's, McDonald’s and Starbucks—show that a swift and orderly exit from Russia is possible.
There is still time for Mondelez to correct the course but Mondelez and Cadbury must choose: stand on the right side of history or remain entangled in a war-fueled economy at the expense of its reputation and integrity.
— Alex Sobel, MP, Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Ukraine
