For Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, the case is very clear.

The management professor at the American University of Yale, says he himself, is just experiencing his 15 minutes of fame.

Soon after Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine began, Sonnenfeld published a list of which Western companies had and hadn't withdrawn from Russia.

This provides plenty to talk about, and Sonnenfeld knows that too.

The "list of shame", as it is often called, led to numerous media inquiries, guest articles and interviews with well-known media from all over the world.

Sonnenfeld does not hold back with his opinion, on the contrary: "If companies don't boycott Russia, boycott the companies," concludes an opinion piece by Sonnenfeld in the "New York Times".

Stefanie Diemand

Editor in Business.

  • Follow I follow

According to Sonnenfeld, there is only one right decision for companies in Russia because of the Ukraine war: they have to leave the country immediately.

But is that really true?

More than 600 companies have withdrawn so far - while some are pausing, others want to turn their backs on the country entirely.

But others remain – to this day.

Companies like Metro, Globus or Liebherr.

It's not easy to find companies that are open about why they stay in Russia.

The FAZ asked all companies that according to the list from Yale University (as of April 13) von Sonnenfeld are still active in Russia, including dairies such as Ehrmann and DMK Group, fashion companies such as New Yorker, machine builders such as Liebherr or Gea, dealers like Metro or Globus.

Some had not responded by the time of going to press.

Companies like Ehrmann gave feedback, but only with a request for understanding that the company did not want to comment.

Another, food manufacturer Carl Kühne, commented in the "Hamburger Abendblatt".

Now its press office says that the company does not want to say anything at the moment because of the “complexity of the overall situation”.

wave of outrage

One person who speaks out is Stefan Klebert from mechanical engineering company Gea.

The head of the company also explains why others prefer to hold back: "Companies and CEOs are increasingly expected to take a stand on socio-political issues," he says.

But the discussion is not being conducted properly: "Looking at the past few years, however, I have noticed that many opinions that are contrary to the prevailing mood at the moment are not respected." Others seem to see it that way too: A company spokesman says on the phone , who does not want to be named, he would get no further with arguments.

The company is already facing calls for a boycott.

And this is probably the crux of the matter, which is why companies shy away from the public when it comes to the Russia question: Cases like Ritter Sport clearly show that customers punish companies that are still in Russia.

Because the chocolate manufacturer initially continued to deliver goods to Russia, a wave of outrage rolled over the company.

"Ritter Sport is Murder" or "Square;

Practical;

Blood" - are the claims in the social media.

Ritter Sport explained that closing the deal would result in production being drastically reduced.

This would have an impact on employees and ultimately also on the cocoa farmers, who themselves come from developing countries.

Even when Ritter Sport promised to donate the profits, the calls for a boycott didn't end.