Photo by Marek Studzinski on Unsplash
As Ukraine enters the fourth year of defending itself against Russia’s full-scale invasion, more than 1,400 German companies still operate in the aggressor state, a situation that raises uncomfortable questions about Europe’s moral and strategic coherence.
A recent investigation by Bild Zeitung (12 October) revealed that German companies such as Beiersdorf, Metro, Hochland, B. Braun, and Merck remain operational in Russia, citing social responsibility towards employees and local partners as their reason for continued presence. However, this language of ethical concern does little to hide the deeper truth: taxes paid by these firms support the Russian war effort that endangers not only Ukraine but also the security of Europe itself.
According to research by Switzerland’s IMD and the University of St. Gallen, only 120 out of over 1,400 Western firms with Russian subsidiaries fully exited the market by the end of 2022. Of those, just 14 were German. The Kyiv School of Economics reports that only 68 out of 352 German companies have completely withdrawn. The remainder continue operations or have only partially suspended activity.
The public statements of these companies starkly contrast with their actions. Take Beiersdorf, for example, the maker of Nivea and Eucerin. In 2024, only 1.5% of its global sales came from Russia, yet the company still described the Russian market as significant for the overall group portfolio. Even this small profit seems to outweigh the moral cost of operating in a war-supporting state.
What is more concerning is the strategic blindness of conducting business in a country that is actively involved in hybrid warfare against Germany and the EU. Russia has carried out cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and more recently, drone strikes on European critical infrastructure. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently said that Europe is no longer officially at peace with Russia, even if no formal war has been declared. Yet German companies act as if none of this is happening.
Ironically, many of these businesses are ignoring not only geopolitical realities but also direct risks to their own investments. Since the beginning of the war, the Kremlin has expropriated foreign assets and placed others under temporary management, stripping owners of the ability to divest fairly. As Reuters has noted, international investors are still reeling from how swiftly and arbitrarily Russia dismantled the business trust built over decades.
By staying in Russia, German companies send a clear message: profits outweigh European security and international law. This weakens Germany’s diplomatic efforts to show solidarity with Ukraine and demonstrate resolve in confronting aggression. For Moscow, the ongoing presence of major Western brands acts as a propaganda tool, reinforcing the illusion that the West is divided and unwilling to make real sacrifices to uphold its principles.
If this dynamic is to change, public pressure must grow stronger. Without oversight from media, civil society, and government actors, companies will lack motivation to change their behaviour. Public shaming, targeted information campaigns, product boycotts, and persistent reminders that their tax payments support war can create the kind of reputational risk that corporations fear more than financial loss.
At a time when unity and resolve define the strength of democracies, Germany’s business community must decide whether it will continue to prioritise short-term revenue or finally align its actions with the values Europe claims to defend.
