The parent company of Cadbury, Mondelez International, has rejected mounting pressure from British politicians and human rights groups to withdraw from Russia. The decision, confirmed in a company statement on Tuesday, means the American confectionery giant will continue operations in the country, more than a year after the invasion of Ukraine.
For workers in Birmingham and Bristol, where Cadbury has major factories, the news lands like a stone on the kitchen table. Mondelez employs thousands in the UK, and its brands include Oreo, Toblerone, and Cadbury Dairy Milk. But the company’s refusal to sever ties with Russia has outraged campaigners who argue that every rouble earned funds a regime accused of war crimes.
The UK government has not imposed a blanket ban on companies operating in Russia, but ministers have urged British-linked firms to exit voluntarily. Labour MP Chris Bryant called the decision “morally bankrupt” and suggested Mondelez should face consequences. “They are choosing profits over principles,” he said.
But on the shop floor, the mood is more complicated. A Cadbury worker in Keynsham, who asked not to be named, told me: “I don’t want my job to pay for bombs, but I also don’t want to lose my livelihood. It’s a wrenching choice.”
Mondelez defends its position by citing humanitarian concerns. “We have significantly scaled back our Russian operations,” a spokesperson said. “We are only selling essential products like baby formula and basic groceries to avoid harming employees and dependents.” The company also points out that it has suspended advertising and investment in Russia.
But critics counter that basic groceries include chocolate bars. And Mondelez’s own data shows that its Russian business, while smaller than before, still generates significant revenue. According to filings, the company employed 2,700 people in Russia at the end of 2022 and operates three factories.
The controversy has thrown a spotlight on the wider issue of corporate responsibility. The UK’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation has fined other firms for breaching sanctions, but so far Mondelez has not been found in violation. However, public pressure is mounting. A petition calling on the government to force Mondelez’s hand has gathered over 50,000 signatures.
For workers in the West Midlands, where unemployment has been rising, the fear is tangible. Unions have largely stayed quiet, wary of picking a fight with a major employer. But the GMB union’s national secretary, Andy Prendergast, said: “Our members are proud of the chocolate they make. They don’t want it to be a tool of oppression. The government must step in and level the playing field so that no company profits from war.”
The question now is whether consumer pressure will do the job that legislation has not. Shoppers I spoke to outside a Tesco in Bolton were divided. “I’ve stopped buying Cadbury,” one pensioner told me. “It tastes bitter now.” Another shrugged: “It’s just chocolate. Prices are high enough as it is.”
Mondelez’s defiance is a litmus test for the “ethical economy” that politicians promise. If a chocolate bar can be a weapon of war, then what about a car or a computer? As the cost of living crisis bites, the gap between what people can afford and what they feel is right grows wider. For now, Mondelez is betting that hunger wins over conscience.
