Over the past three years, international companies from different sectors have been fuelling Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, which has so far resulted in at least 12,456 civilians killed, including 669 children, and 28,382 injured. Millions of Ukrainians, including myself, spend nights in bomb shelters as Russia continues terrorising civilians with massive airstrikes. Entire cities, including Mariupol, Volnovakha, Popasna, Sievierodonetsk, Maryinka, Soledar and Bakhmut, have been completely destroyed by the Russian army. Yet businesses continue contributing to these atrocities through taxes they pay, supply chains they support, and technology they provide, helping Russia get closer to its ultimate goal – the destruction of Ukraine’s sovereignty. A political resolution to this aggression hardly appears possible, since Putin is willing to end it under one condition unacceptable to the Ukrainian people: the unconditional surrender of Ukraine. That is why the only way to end the war and stop the endless killings is to deprive Russia of the economic resources it needs to continue this costly aggression. Businesses, governments and international organisations can play a crucial role here. However, our findings show a catastrophic lack of action from the key stakeholders.

Lack of action by business

Over 1,767 international companies are still conducting business in Russia, and many appear to be making great profits. None of these companies can avoid contributing to Russia’s war effort either indirectly through taxes or directly through compliance with the Kremlin’s conscription law, which requires companies to assist the government with mobilisation efforts. Since this law contradicts the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs) by requiring actions inconsistent with international human rights standards, and the Russian context leaves little room for mitigating human rights risks, companies should consider exiting. However, most businesses present in the Russian market failed to do so. Companies headquartered in the United States and Germany top the list of businesses that chose to remain in the Russian market, followed by Chinese companies.

By staying in Russia and paying taxes, companies contribute to its war economy. Over the last three years, foreign multinationals paid an estimated USD41.6 billion in total tax, which is equivalent to almost one-third of Russia’s estimated military budget for 2025. From 2025, corporate tax will rise from 20%to 25%, and military spending will account for 40% of the state budget to cover war related expenditures.

Corporate inaction is accompanied by an overwhelming lack of transparency on the part of companies we approach regarding alleged human rights abuses. For example, a response rate to our latest outreach to 302 companies accused of enabling the Russian aggression by providing the equipment needed to make weapons for attacks on Ukraine constitutes a mere 10% (30 responses). Just two companies, ABBA (Switzerland) and Kulicke & Soffa (USA), stated they take the concerns we raised very seriously, and reported they had initiated internal reviews to gather more information. This extremely low level of transparency is shocking given the majority of the Russian attacks target civilian infrastructure and result in numerous civilian deaths.

Lack of action by states

Western governments continue doing business with Russia, including importing Russian fossil fuels - a key enabler of Russia's military buildup and aggression against Ukraine. In the first 15 days of 2025, EU imports of liquified natural gas from Russia marked a record high, allowing the Kremlin to earn billions of dollars it can use to fund its war in Ukraine. After oil and gas, metal accounts for a significant portion of Russia's export earnings. But the EU is in no hurry to impose sanctions on Russian metals. From January to June 2024, the EU imported 2.87 million tons of metallurgical raw materials from Russia worth EUR1.4 billion.

Weak enforcement of export controls by Western governments allows Russia to continue importing sanctioned dual-use goods and advanced technology critical for its military. Between January 2023 and July 2024, Russia received more than 10,000 Computer Numerical Control (CNC) machines worth more than USD403 million produced by EU companies along with components and consumables worth more than USD1.1 billion. Italy and Germany are leading the way in deliveries among EU member states. Lastly, no EU country has issued a business advisory on risks associated with doing business in Russia - three years after the start of Russia’s aggression.

Lack of context-specific authoritative guidance for companies

While existing guides and tools on heightened human rights due diligence (hHRDD) are very useful in some contexts, they are not as helpful in others. What is missing is clear authoritative guidance that would point to salient risks companies should prioritise in their human rights assessments depending on the context in which they operate. What is relevant in the context of civil war may not necessarily be relevant in the context of an aggressor state waging a war against another state, or in the context of a country that is defending itself from the aggressor. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is a tragic illustration of this. While under the UNGPs businesses should pay taxes, including in challenging circumstances, by paying taxes in Russia companies are helping the aggressor commit war crimes in Ukraine.

Similarly, the concept of “responsible exit” focuses on weighing harms versus benefits to people in a country from which a company is considering exiting. This makes good sense in the context of a civil war. However, when applied to an international armed conflict, it overlooks the impact such exit may have on people in other countries involved in the conflict. Besides, existing tools on hHRDD focus on assessing adverse impacts of business activities on conflict and human rights. This means they are less helpful for companies operating in countries defending themselves from the aggressor because they largely ignore heightened human rights risks caused by the war. Finally, the lack of guidance on controversial issues, such as access to essential goods and services, provides a loophole for companies to justify their presence in aggressor states.

Conclusion

It should be crystal clear to any company that doing business with or operating in an aggressor state, like Russia, is inconsistent with internationally recognised human rights standards because it always contributes to massive human rights harms. Lack of decisive action by governments combined with an absence of authoritative and specific guidance on responsible conduct allow businesses to play a key enabling role in the atrocities committed by the Russian government in Ukraine. It is time for all stakeholders, including businesses, governments and international organisations, to join forces, insist on rapid and responsible exit from any direct or indirect support to Russia’s deadly war in Ukraine.

By Ella Skybenko, Senior Researcher and Representative: Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre