The CSR cites Australia’s Canva, a graphic design platform, as a firm that has demonstrated particular “irresponsibility” since the war started: Canva is said to have left Russia “on racial grounds,” referring to the company’s termination of access for all Russian users. In addition, the CSR notes, Canva donated $1 million to Ukraine and condemned the Russian invasion.

Other companies given the lowest “red” ranking include the US network-equipment maker Cisco, the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer and the writing app Grammarly. After the CSR report, Pfizer felt the need to clarify it had not left Russia and continues to supply medicines to the country. The list also includes Amazon, the BBC and PayPal.

The CSR press release is written in a tone that is openly hostile and even threatening to these companies. “The internet remembers everything, the digital trace has already been left,” the report warns foreign brands that might seek to contest their ranking.

‘Yellow’ and ‘green’ companies

Most of the companies reviewed by the CSR were put in the “yellow” or “green” levels.
The “yellow” list covers 35.1% of companies. They have not displayed overt hostility toward Russia but did not act “responsibly” when exiting: they failed to support staff and/or abandoned their businesses without sanctions pressure. Examples of “yellow” companies are H&M, Dell, Ubisoft and IKEA. The latter cited economic reasons for its exit, suspended operations in Russia and Belarus in March 2022, donated EUR40 million to humanitarian programs not directly tied to the Ukrainian government, and temporarily kept 15,000 employees on staff. The “yellow” list also contains difficult cases, such as Microsoft and Intel, which feature “unfriendly” actions combined with some mitigating measures.

The “green” list (34.2%) is companies that exited in a “responsible” manner – they were forced to leave Russia by sanctions and/or supported local employees as they left. CSR further broke these companies down:

• “blue” (20.5%) are companies whose exit was partly forced or voluntary but with mitigating factors (e.g., Adidas, Airbnb, Nestlé);
• “gray” (11.7%) are companies that exited even though they were not forced to do so by sanctions and failed to support local employees, but without demonstrating hostility toward Russia (e.g., McDonald’s, Michelin, Apple);
• “white” (2.0%) are companies that left in the “most correct” manner (e.g., Ericsson, JDE Peet’s, Decathlon, Marriott).

Marriott, for instance, suspended operations because of sanctions, provided $1 million to help staff in Russia and Ukraine and allowed hotels to continue operating under new brands.

Another 8.7% of companies, according to the CSR, continue to operate in Russia and are not included in the lists.

Even ‘green’ companies may find going back to Russia complicated

The CSR writes that companies that left Russia “responsibly” – that is, having taken care of their employees and not made public statements in support of Ukraine – will be allowed to return to the country only if there is an “industry need.” This corresponds to statements by Russian officials, who have indicated that certain conditions will be imposed on returning companies.

Vladimir Putin, for example, has said that if the niche of an exited Western company has already been filled by a Russian one, then “the train has already left.” Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin has stated that decisions will be made on a company-by-company basis by a special commission. Among the potential conditions to be imposed, the Russian media has mentioned a certain level of production localization. Another was named by Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov: returning companies will be required to operate in Ukrainian territory occupied by Russia.

Even if a list of conditions is officially approved, most companies will have their cases considered individually, at least at the level of the government or special commissions, Artur Gafarov, head of the Institute for the Development of Entrepreneurship and Economics, told RBC.

Do foreign companies want to go back to Russia?

The CSR analysis assumes that now, three years after the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, many Western brands want to reverse their decision to leave and are looking to go back. The think tank claims many Western companies that exited in 2022 are filing to register trademarks in Russia. The reality, however, is that it is impossible to conduct an objective analysis around this metric. Still, such headlines are regularly run by Russian state and pro-regime media. There have been several this year: for example, about applications from Calvin Klein, Nissan, IKEA, Victoria’s Secret, Prada and a handful of other well-known Western brands.

Yet trademark registration does not necessarily mean a company plans to restart operations in Russia. McDonald’s, for instance, denied any plans to return after a trademark registration story, explaining that the filing was meant to protect its intellectual property. This undermines the CSR’s assumption that many Western brands want to return.

Even Putin’s press secretary, Dmitri Peskov, has confirmed that Western companies are in no hurry to come back. “There are some hypothetical discussions, but no one is taking any practical steps,” Peskov said in June this year.

At the same time, the Kremlin is clearly interested in maintaining contact with departed firms. The theme of a potential return increasingly surfaces in government rhetoric: in addition to the officials mentioned above, Prosecutor General Igor Krasnov and Russian Direct Investment Fund head Kirill Dmitriev have raised the issue. Earlier this year, the FT reported that last winter, after Trump took office, officials from the Russian Finance Ministry began calling top managers of Western companies that had left with offers to come back.

Such attention suggests that the return of foreign companies remains important to the Russian government, though the process looks bound to be subject to conditions and restrictions, a possible version of which was outlined by the CSR.