Holier than thou ice cream giant Unilever rakes in £500million on Russian sales

THE British firm behind Dove soap and Cornetto has made over half a billion pounds selling its products in Russia since it invaded Ukraine, the Daily Mail can reveal.

Unilever, which also makes Domestos bleach and Hellmann’s mayonnaise, has refused to shut up shop – making it one of the few Western firms remaining.

Its presence in Russia, where it has 3,500 employees and four major production facilities, means it contributes tens of millions of pounds in taxes to Vladimir Putin’s war chest.

Former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith branded Unilever a ‘disgrace’ and led calls for its brands to be boycotted.

Campaigners said Unilever’s Ruscomes sian operation had made over £500million and was providing Putin with enough funds to pay for 17,000 soldiers.

The row is a major embarrassment for Unilever and its boss Alan Jope – particularly as the company is notorious for burnishing its ‘woke’ credentials.

Earlier this month, the company was blasted as ‘truly bonkers’ for claiming one of its soap brands can ‘ inspire women to rise above sexism’.

Its sales bonanza in Russia drew criticism from across the political spectrum in Britain.

Accusing the firm of hypocrisy, former business secretary Jacob Rees-Mogg said: ‘The saccharine sentiments of Unilever’s corporate governance are not reflected in accepting Russian blood money. I prefer honest capitalism to self-serving sanctimony.’

And Labour MP Chris Bryant said: ‘It’s depressing Unilever still don’t get it. They’re making money off the back of Putin’s bloodstained war against Ukraine. Their excuses are pathetic.’ Criticism of Unilever after Paul Smith finally pulled out of Russia after the Mail exposed the fashion tycoon’s lucrative ties to the rogue state. However, two other luxury British brands – Agent Provocateur and Rolls-Royce – are yet to cease trading in Russia.

In March, London-based Unilver’s chief executive Mr Jope promised to create an economic ringfence around the country, saying the company would not profit from its business there.

He added that Unilever would only sell its ‘essential food and hygiene products’ in Russia – which are made locally.

But it has since emerged Unilever still sells its hugely popular Magnum and Cornetto ice cream brands in Russia.

Sir Iain, who recently returned from a trip to Ukraine feeding families who had been ‘shelled out of their homes’, said Unilever ‘should be ashamed’.

He added: ‘It is absolutely appalling Unilever thinks it is okay to sell its products there.

‘I would love to take the head of Unilever to the frontline and say, “What do you say to feeding Russia simply because you want to make a profit?”’ The Moral Rating Agency, a lobby group which monitors Western firms operating in Russia, estimated Unilever has made £556million of sales in the past year.

The group said its ‘ total economic contribution’ in the country amounts to £1.2million a day.

Founder Mark Dixon said: ‘First, it supports the war economically but then condemns the war. Next, it says its ice cream is an essential food when it’s not essential at all.

‘If Unilever doesn’t boycott Russia, its products should be boycotted. An immoral brand doesn’t taste very good when you think about its association with the invasion of Ukraine.’ Unilever declined to comment.

‘Self-serving sanctimony’

Amid the drama of assembling a force of Leopard tanks and fighter jets to repel the latest Russian offensive in Ukraine, the execution of the West’s financial crusade has fallen off the radar.

The Russian economy is in a far better place than Nato may have hoped, with the IMF projecting recovery this year and next.

Russian oil and other trades have been directed to non-sanctioning nations.

And in spite of Western support, Ukraine’s economy is being pushed to the limits with output projected to tumble by a further 5pc this year.

The willingness of China, india et al to keep trade alive with Vladimir Putin in the face of sanctions makes it imperative that Western firms tighten the noose.

it is humiliating for Britain’s luxury fashion house Paul Smith that its latest emblematic clothing designs were still on display a year after the outbreak of hostilities. Smith has had to beat a hasty retreat.

What is even more startling is that the UK’s flagship consumer good group Unilever, which trades under the banner of making ‘sustainable living commonplace’, has stayed open in Russia during the last year of grisly warfare. The maker of dove soap, Hellmann’s mayonnaise and magnum ice cream has earned an estimated £500m since the start of the conflict.

Unilever has a big presence in Russia, with 3,500 employees and four major production facilities. it has maintained that it didn’t want to damage the welfare of its staff.

Yet there is no escaping the fact that by keeping Russia supplied with hygiene and other products, the group is making life more comfortable for the aggressors in a blood-stained conflict.

Continued presence is a direct affront to Unilever’s image as apostles of ethical investing. in contrast to Unilever’s pussyfooting, some of the great names of capitalism showed little hesitation in pulling out.

Goldman Sachs had a thriving investment banking arm in Russia, reaching deep into the country’s commerce. it moved rapidly to sever ties with the rest of Goldman and the financial system, and the rump was bought out by local managers.

Western sanctions may have hurt living standards in moscow, but have not brought the country to its knees.

When they were first imposed, it was thought that financial measures such as cutting off Putin from the Swift money transfer system and the Western banks would bring his kleptocracy to its knees.

Banking sanctions finally brought the apartheid regime in South Africa to its senses. The big difference is that Pretoria was under siege from both the West and the non-aligned world.

Putin has forged an alliance of the disgruntled which reinforces still unquenched territorial ambition.

City slickers

A WIDELY held view when Britain left the EU was that the ability of the City to exercise influence over financial trading in europe would be diminished.

The EU was desperate to ditch the Anglo-Saxon model. Among other things, it proposed a clampdown on dark trading – or pools which allow critical players such as big battalion investors to deal without disclosing details until they are completed.

Brussels looks to have decided that if you can’t beat them, join them. Just a few weeks ago, euronext chiefs were making dubious claims about having overtaken the London Stock exchange for share trading.

in an interview with the journal The Trade, Simon Gallagher, euronext’s head of cash and derivatives, concedes: ‘The weight of the Financial Conduct Authority and the City in european regulation has never been greater. Post-Brexit the City is defining the rules of Continental europe more than ever before.’

The government view – that of all the economy’s sectors, the Square mile was fit enough to swim on its own – is being vindicated.

Lotus position

REMEMBER Lotus? Colin Chapman’s Norfolk-based racing and fast cars were seen as a triumph of British engineering.

But like so many brilliant UK car marques, it failed commercially and ended up in the hands of China, with the advanced engineering – some of which inspired the Tesla Roadster – remaining on these shores.

There are now plans to float Lotus Technology in New York with a heady valuation of £4.4bn. What that will mean for Lotus UK, the brains and heritage behind the brand, is anyone’s guess. Why New York rather than London? Just check the performance of Ferrari versus Aston martin.