Public Discussion: Corporate Social Responsibility at War - What Should Companies do in Russia?

As a response to the invasion of Ukraine, various economic and political measures have been taken for pressuring Russian authorities to end the hostilities and the killing of civilians. Such measures encompass boycotting Russian companies, banning the exports of sensitive goods such as semi-conductors, shutting down air spaces, freezing private and public assets, suspending Russia from various organizations.

In addition to decisions made by states and international institutions and civil societies, many corporations have also contributed to pressing the Russian government, on their own initiative or under public insistence. Those initiatives include exiting Russia, selling financial assets, closing stores, interrupting the supply chain, and so forth.

Other firms are reluctant to boycott or pull out of the Russian market for various reasons: doubts regarding the efficacy of sanctions, especially on the ‘elites’, reluctance to punish common people who are not responsible for the war, risk of losing investments. This cautious reaction illustrates the dilemmas faced by the executives of foreign companies operating in Russia.

Figuring out one’ responsibilities in wartime is not trivial, and the whole exercise carries implications beyond the firm and its shareholders. This bleak situation raises several key questions for corporate social responsibility:

• What does it entail for an enterprise present on the Russian market to act ‘responsibly’?
• Do companies have an obligation to join the sanctions against the Russian authorities in order to pressure for a political goal, i.e. stopping the invasion?
• What are the means that corporations can use for fulfilling their social responsibilities?
• Could it be justifiable not to participate to the sanctions?
• What should be the objective or term of the corporate sanctions: the end of the war, the withdrawal of the Russian army to the pre-2022 boundaries, to the pre-2014 frontiers, or something more ambitious such as a change of leadership?
• Are those sanctions efficient and does it matter from a corporate perspective?

Speakers:

Chris MacDonald (Ryerson University)

Chris MacDonald is an associate professor, writer, speaker and consultant on ethics. MacDonald has been at the Ted Rogers School of Management since August 2012. His expertise in the field of ethics has led to him receiving a number of awards over the years, including being named one of the ‘100 Most Influential People in Business Ethics,’ for the past four years by Ethisphere magazine. MacDonald has also been recognized as one of the ‘Top 100 Thought Leaders in Trustworthy Business Behaviour’ by Trust Across America in 2011 and 2012. A philosopher by training, MacDonald is also the creator and co-editor of the Business Ethics Journal Review and the author of the highly-regarded Business Ethics Blog.

Professional link

Jeffrey Moriarty (Bentley University)

Jeffrey Moriarty is Professor and Chair of Philosophy and the executive director of the Hoffman Center for Business Ethics at Bentley University. He works mainly in business ethics, though he also has research interests in political philosophy, and at the intersection of these fields. He is especially interested in questions of just distribution in state and organizational contexts. This has led him to investigate the ethical aspects of compensation arrangements, including CEO compensation. Publications to feature his work include Business Ethics Quarterly, Journal of Business Ethics, Economics and Philosophy, Noûs, and Philosophical Studies. He has a Ph.D. from Rutgers University and an A.B. from Princeton University, both in philosophy.

Professional link