Russia - I'm In
Why "Boycott Russia" is not for me.
This post is a window into yet another difficult set of contradictions and dilemmas facing us in a world guided by the UN’s Global Goals. I’m not totally sure this one resolves itself, but I do feel I’ve reached a position, at least for the time being, on a another tough issue.
Russia is evil. Everyone hates Russia. All companies who do business there are evil. Get out of Russia. Don’t just boycott Russia - boycott all the companies who do business in Russia. #BoycottMcDonalds #BoycottCocaCola #BoycottPepsi.
That was the mood in March last year after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022; after the UN General Assembly and the UN International Court of Justice in March issued their demands for Russian withdrawal; after trading sanctions were imposed by the US and its allies; after banking restrictions, bans, export controls, asset freezing and asset seizing.
Actually, no, I tell a lie - boycotting wasn’t the “mood” at all. It was much more than a “mood”. More than a “climate”.
It had become a de facto law to boycott companies doing business in Russia.
As Dr Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Steven Tian said in the New York Times in April 2022: “Our goal is absolute, and some might even say extreme: Every corporation with a presence in Russia must publicly commit to a total cessation of business there” adding “Americans who are sickened by businesses’ indifference to the bloodshed can make their voices heard: If the companies won’t boycott Russia, boycott the companies”.
Wow. There’s high demands there, and anger.
To power their campaign, Sonnenfeld and Tian created a “List of Shame” which was reproduced, cited, copied, enhanced and augmented throughout Western media ever since and refreshed by Sonnenfeld and Tian and their team of 60 researchers at Yale University’s School of Management.
Not only did they have high demands, and anger, they also had money
So it was in this context that one specific example stood out for me at the time - pressure had built up on McDonald’s to withdraw from Russia, and when McDonald’s finally announced in May 2022 that it would withdraw (“de-arching”), citing among other things that operating in Russia was not aligned with its values, there was a sigh of relief that McDonald’s had “bowed to pressure” and done the right thing.
I was not totally comfortable with this immediate boycotting, and I honestly still don’t know why.
I think boycotting is a blunt instrument, which most often under detailed scrutiny fails to make sense or impact, and is often a knee-jerk quick-fix reaction with no clear outcome, where a more considered and reasoned approach would be more efficient and effective in achieving a specific outcome.
I certainly did not have the conviction which Sonnenfeld and Tian had, and I watched the global momentum which they powered - where they were feted around the world, including by President Zelenskyy himself - with amazement, recalling how Johns Hopkins University’s Coronavirus Resource Center had, just the year before, established itself during the pandemic as (probably) the world’s most cited authority on the topic. Sonnenfeld had become the world’s epicentre of the boycott movement as Johns Hopkins had become the world’s epicentre during COVID - a simply astonishing achievement in PR and brand building.
Then this week I was re-reviewing the WPP 2021 Sustainability Report prior to the 2022 report coming out this month (these are benchmark reports for me - the highest possible standard, in my view - I am a big admirer). On WPP’s decision to discontinue operations in Russia (and, implicitly to sever relations with the nearly 1,400 people who had been “dedicated members of the WPP family for many years”) CEO Mark Read said “to continue operating in Russia would be inconsistent with our values as a company”.
It’s wrong for me to judge WPP, and I am not doing that here. I am certain that for them the decision was right and proper, and extremely tough to take. I have no doubt whatsoever that it was also taken with great care and consideration. But please let me use the decision and its presentation as a case study to analyse.
The bottom line in this case was: a company was firing 1,400 people from its “family” (its own words) because they were based in a specific country where the Government had done bad things and the company was saying, as McDonald’s did, that keeping those people was “inconsistent with its values”.
WPP was joining in the boycott. And terminating 1,400 of its people.
And so it hit me - I do not think I would have voted in my company to do what WPP did, and here’s why:
We are a Partnership (not a family btw) where it is explicit in our code of conduct that individuals are there to help each other. Why would we not try to help our colleagues in Russia, despite the despicable acts undertaken by their Government?
A community of employees goes through hard times and good times and becomes progressively more aligned as it grows, and each person in the community would have earned and given trust and loyalty to colleagues and the firm in the process. They would clearly have established their credentials as “good people”.
How is it defensible to terminate good people just because of the country they live in? They have done nothing wrong, they are not criminals, they have not changed overnight, yet we terminate them?
How is it right to unilaterally punish all people who are Russian, especially those with whom you have built a relationship of trust and respect, just because something that their Government did?
What external force, other than the law, could possibly be a higher authority over our own duty to our people?
And I’m forced to ask: was “public opinion” the higher authority which forced WPP’s hand in Russia? If so, then I would prefer to stand for a duty to my work colleagues and defy public opinion.
Because, after a year of thrashing the boycott question through my mind, I just don’t see how:
Working with 1,400 colleagues based in Russia and looking after their livelihoods, is “inconsistent with our values” but;
Firing 1,400 colleagues (or at least transferring to local ownership) because their Government does despicable things is “consistent with our values” .
Now, one further complication arises. The UK’s The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 act came into force on 31 December 2020 and was updated no less than 18 times during 2021 and 2022, with material changes to Clause 54C, which effectively bans WPP (and us) from operating in Russia. I quote from the legislation: “A person must not directly or indirectly provide, to a person connected with Russia …advertising services…business and management consulting services…design services, or public relations services.”
If the law says we must not operate in Russia, then I would take the hit and close down our Russia operations, and I would cite the law as the higher authority which trumps our own instinct to support and protect our colleagues. Sickening to do, but right under the law.
But if we were faced today with the same choice to continue, or close, our operations in Russia, and without a law telling us exactly how to act, I think I would vote to continue, on the basis that our highest duty is to the people who work in the business.
Thanks to Ice Age for inspiration.