The Corporate Soul

After the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, there was a systemic push by the Western powers to retaliate against Russia in the economic domain. Although it was recognized that such economic warfare would generate acute turbulence in the world economy, it was decided that the economic disruption would be offset by either the moral calling of standing with Ukraine or imposing punitive and crippling sanctions that would incur crippling costs for Russia’s aggression. A part of this economic warfare was prosecuted at the governmental level, such as through explicit sanctions regimes or the SWIFT-system exclusion. However, part of this was to be executed by corporations that engaged in commerce and investment in Russia. It was expected that these Western corporations would forgo their operational and financial interests in Russia for the larger moral cause of support to Ukraine during its time of unprecedented ordeal.

But did Western companies really follow through with this moral commitment to the cause? If one were to gauge from their virtue-signaling public messages, it would appear that Western corporations were not just standing in solidarity with Ukraine but actually at the vanguard of combat themselves. A study by Evenett and Pisani demonstrates that less than 10% of European firms have divested themselves from Russia. Instead of towing the line of their governments, these corporations continue to happily do business, even as they virtue-signal their solidarity to the public and to shareholders.

In their study, Evenett and Pisani identified 2,405 subsidiaries owned by 1,404 multinationals at the start of the conflict, out of which more than 90% have remained well after the prosecution of the war began. What is interesting is that, out of the many remaining firms, 20% are German, whose role in EU affairs is significant and whose supranational position has been singularly condemnatory towards Moscow’s belligerence. Among those few that did divest, many had less than 10% of their operating profit derived from Russia and roughly 15% of their employee base. Therefore, their decision may have been influenced as much by lower profit-to-employee ratios as by moral grandstanding.

This echoes a pattern observed among corporations of “greenwashing” their operations, which is to say, using a genteel rhetoric for shareholders and the public. They enshroud their operations in the garb of “eco-friendly”, “diversity”, “progressive,” and other soft-sounding soundbites, even as their actual activities may work as cross-purposes to the publicly desired objectives. This was strongly observed in the COP summits, at Davos, and Black Lives Matter, where corporations positioned themselves to extract further consumer spending by hijacking these social movements. Much critique of corporate double-standards has come forth as consumers are seeing through this charade, particularly through activism on social media highlighting the mismatch between the corporate appearance and the corporate soul.

The fact that such little European corporate decision-making has been changed by the Russo-Ukrainian war also points to the larger question of geopolitics vs. geoeconomics. Although many have heralded the demise of globalization and the the new “national security” mindset that has won over against corporate or economic interest, perhaps this claim has been somewhat exaggerated. Geoconomics has given way to geopolitics in several major international tussles (West vs. China, West vs. Russia), but not to the extent that pundits appear to claim. If 90% of Western multinationals are remaining and doing business in Russia well after an international conflict broke out, and 20% of those companies are German, perhaps the tension between geopolitics and geoeconomics is not as stark as one might think. At the same time, what was true before this conflict and remains true today is that corporations are more than happy to talk in a manner that consumers like to hear, but not act in a manner that consumers would like them to act.

Dr. Usman W. Chohan is Advisor (Economic Affairs and National Development) at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies, Islamabad. He can be reached at [email protected].


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

How the Nature of Warfare Affects the AI Optimism

Since the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI), a pressing question is being asked: Is Clausewitz still relevant? The game-changing potential of AI and the idea of human-machine teaming (centaur systems) have led many to doubt the seemingly unchanged nature of war. Apparently, it has given rise to the belief that AI-powered systems will replace humans (generals) in the command loop. However, this view is detached from the complex nature of warfare, which remains fundamentally a human endeavour guided by violence, chance and friction.

Just like other social institutions, war is generally an interpretivist paradigm rooted in complex human nature. It is a non-linear phenomenon whose conduct and outcomes cannot be determined by analytical predictions or algorithmic patterns. In other words, war usually does not proceed on pre-determined rules of engagement, prescriptive manuals, established patterns and predictive modelling. Instead, it is fought on judgment, adaptation to changing realities, commander’s intuition and paying attention to the unfolding of the unknown. 

Read More »

Two Faces of the Atom: India’s Nuclear Exceptionalism

ew examples capture the inconsistencies of the nuclear world order more starkly than the events of 2 March 2026: as Prime Ministers’ Mark Carney and Narendra Modi signed a landmark 1.9 billion USD uranium supply deal for India’s civil nuclear sector, Iran was subjected to the third day of indiscriminate airstrikes by the US and Israel under the banner of nuclear non-proliferation, despite Iran agreeing to zero stockpiling of enriched uranium just days prior. This event, unfortunately, was not an isolated one, rather it reflects a pattern of nuclear exceptionalism where certain states such as India, continue to be rewarded for non-compliance with international regulations, while others such as Iran, are censured and even subjected to military action based on hypothetical realities.

The latest deal would see Canada sell close to 22 million pounds of uranium concentrate to India over 8 years, starting in 2027, a sale more than ten times the last Canada-India uranium agreement of 2015, which supplied 7 million pounds of concentrate over 5 years.

Read More »

Data Centres as the New Military Targets in Modern Conflicts

The character of warfare has evolved in tandem with the changing nature of military targets. In early March 2026, Iran bypassed traditional military targets and struck the physical part of the digital infrastructure at Amazon Web Services (AWS) data centres in the UAE and Bahrain. Until now data centres had been considered an unassuming target, as they did not house any military equipment or hardware. However, the US-Israel war on Iran, has transformed these billion dollar sites into high-value targets because of their ability to act as server farms on which adversaries’ websites, apps, AI systems and the entire digital infrastructure run.

Data centres are digital ecosystems where the delivery of cloud services depends on the integrity of physical infrastructure. Disruption in any one part of the shared infrastructure does not remain isolated and risks triggering widespread systemic failure. In the case at hand, Amazon operated multiple availability zones within each region in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. Iran struck two of the three availability zones in the UAE, while in Bahrain, a zone was damaged by drone debris causing an extended power outage and connectivity problems that further disrupted service across the Gulf.

Read More »