Talk:List of companies that applied sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War

Gazprom-Media

I'm guessing NTV didn't suspend operations in Crimea over the Crimean crisis. A region should be specified -- I'm pretty sure most of the others should be "Crimea and Sevastopol".

Addition to what I posted earlier from my IP: I've found a source. http://en.krymedia.ru/society/3367633-NTV-Companys-Channels-Shut-Down-in-Crimea-Because-of-Sanctions I'll just edit that into the article. 06:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWizard (talk • contribs)

List of suggestions - URGENT

1. Companies do not apply sanctions, only governments. Also, some companies had no or very limited response, so the header is actually misleading. Need to replace header to "Reactions of Companies to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine".

2. Need to consolidate with the on-going paragraph "Corporation" here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine and effectively consolidate into one list as a separate page. No point in duplicate info.

3. Suspended services section is too narrow in scope. In some cases that's products in other services in other just relationships. Rename to "Details".

4. Remove Headquarters column - simply not relevant. Dates columns are hard to maintain since no one knows when companies actually did anything. Suggest to remove

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DmitryShpak (talk • contribs) 23:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

"Reactions" is close to meaningless here. "Sanctions" captures the economic and business nature of these actions, similar to the moves taken by state-level actors.

This page is dedicated to listing those corporate sanctions, so adding companies that have not yet withdrawn operations or suspended services in Russia is not helpful. GeorgeHenryBorrow (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Companies simply don't apply economic sanctions. A limited reference can be to "sanction an employee" ... but that's clearly out of scope here. I don't like "Reaction" either. Please propose something what can capture context but not confuse. Sanctions/Reactions is not some uniform action. All companies do it differently and on different level. Stop investments ... neither product or service. IMPORTANT, need to monitor companies that say things but, don't do what they say ... Most important: Need to monitor companies that do very little (there is no threshold of what is considered sanctions/actions ... e.g. CEO said we against the war and we are changing our operations in Russia. ... what is that?

I spent some time updating main page (BTW called Reaction to the War - do you want to go and argue with hundreds of people?) but found this page more scalable and clean. Have been moving content here and asking everyone who works on personal google docs to come here. Please be more open minded. Thsi is not a pet project. Thanks. DmitryShpak (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It's fair point about the term "sanctions" being less than perfect, but companies actually do use the term internally for these actions, and since "to sanction" means to impose a penalty, that does seem to capture better what's happening here rather than "reactions"; they are tangible business decisions designed to be punitive and express disapproval. We are witnessing the evolution of this word's definition in real-time. I agree that there is no monetary threhold; it is a spectrum of actions that will matter more for some companies than others, but merely putting out an announcement of sympathy or concern doesn't seem to fit.

One possibility might be to have another column in the table that indicates company status, with a couple of agreed-upon terms for that column, such as "Withdrawn" and "not-Withdrawn," for example. In that case, this table could include prospective companies like PepsiCo that haven't made any announcement, but then the universe for this table would include all the companies in the world. That would seem to decrease the utility of page. And there are several other pages that are describing these corporate sanctions, but in paragraph or text format. One strength of this page, as you note, is it's simple table format, which allows for others to use this data actively.

I agree that there is no easy answer, but I would like to propose that for now we just add companies to this table that have announced "sanctions." This could include investment companies, endowments, and pension funds, as well, if they announce divestitures. GeorgeHenryBorrow (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

"companies actually do use the term internally for these actions" - I'm going through a lot of these announcements and NONE of them said "company announced sanctions". In some cases company "reacted" to sanctions enacted by the government, but not another way around.

"spectrum of actions" is the most correct definition, but maybe too long. pelase refer to main page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine section specifically called "Reactions".

"putting out an announcement of sympathy or concern doesn't seem to fit" - depends what you are trying to capture. This page suppose to fit the purpose. That is capture what companies did in reaction to the war. Some did more concrete things and some just published CEO statement. Both have to be tagged here so people see where companies stand.

"company status, with a couple of agreed-upon terms for that column" - the variety of responses is too wide to try to standardize them. That's not the objective of Wiki. Capturing what's going on is.

"this table would include all the companies in the world" - I have the same concern. I suggest to add a loose criteria that only companies with material operations in Russia before the war must be entered. Otherwise every coffee shop can be added because they placed a poster on the wall.

"I would like to propose that for now we just add companies to this table that have announced "sanctions."" - totally disagree. 1. go to main page and see the type of companies' responses captured there under "reactions"/"Companies". Until I found this page, I thought that's the only place. In reality 80% of info is duplicated. In some cases companies reactions are very very far from sanctions, e.g. stop investments. Wiki intentionally unstructured format so there is no hard guard rails.

"This could include investment companies, endowments, and pension funds" - pension fund cannot announce sanctions on Russia. At best they announce divestment of Russia-related companies. This is "reaction" but not even close to "sanctions".

OK, we all passionate about it. How much harm is to capture more info than less?

Here is what Yale business school just did. I've reached out and asked them to move all their efforts to this page. https://som.yale.edu/story/2022/over-200-companies-have-withdrawn-russia-some-remain Here is another list, for reference, but I asked them to move to this wiki page https://www.thegoodlobby.eu/2022/03/04/ukraine-corporate-index/

Thanks DmitryShpak (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Yale list of companies which retired from Russia

Hi, I would like to bring to your attention this list created by Yale University of international firms which announced their withdrawal from Russia. It contains also a list of firms that are remaining in Russia. P1221 (talk) 08:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion

The name: "Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion" or "Table of corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion" might be a good option that would serve all purposes, but I believe it would be important to have a column that indicates whether that company is operating normally in Russia or not. The research at Yale is very good, and they still divide the two groups of companies (withdrawn and remaining) into two sections so you can quickly see which companies are still operating normally. We could do this by having a separate column in the table that readers can sort on.

I completely agree that sanctions isn't the best word, also because additional companies might continue to suspend services out of operational issues and not to be punitive, but most of the company announcements so far associate their actions with expressing disapproval.

There are other pages doing very similar work. See 2022 boycott of Russia and Belarus as a great example. That page also separates out remaining companies at the bottom (like the Yale research). There are many duplicative efforts, but providing all this information in a table format is very valuable for other researchers, and it would be good to aggregate all this information in a simple, clean table format.

This page is actually linked from the main invasion page: 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, so that might be a better referring page to have at the top.

I would strongly agree with renaming to Corporate Responses, but Corporate Reactions to the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine could also work. It is worth considering that some companies as of writing, like Caterpillar and Kimberly-Clark, are still operating.

On a note of convenience, I would also prefer that bullet points grouped by industry would be better than a table. Many entries from Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine could be copied over much more easily and we could just put a MainArticle template there. Moreover, I think that including excerpts of corporate statements and links to them, assuming that a secondary source mentions the pullout, would be useful. I understand the table does have its benefits, but it's much more convenient if we could just copy over entries from the broader article.InvadingInvader (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks.GeorgeHenryBorrow (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Stub rows added to include companies withdrawn (Yale research)

I added some stub rows to the table to include research done at Yale for other companies that have withdrawn, but the number of companies withdrawing is increasing hour by hour, so these additions do not yet reflect that entire list.

Please feel free to roll back this addition if it's not helpful. GeorgeHenryBorrow (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Column 'Suspended Services'

Hi there, It would be great to better detail the information, which is currently in the column 'Suspended Services'. What do you think about splitting that column into the following ones: 1. Shipment/provision of service to Russia 2. Own operation in Russia 2.1. Suspension 2.2. Termination or divestment 3. Procurement form Russia 4. Cooperation with Russian partners 5. Other Wissen4all (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

---

1. I don't have rights to rename the title of the page. Asked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lists but no response. Not quite sure who can do that. Short of that, I'm just thinking to "decommission" this page and start new one copying most of the info.

2. I don't see a link from 2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine - maybe I'm blind. I linked this page to the main Reactions_to_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine and asked to stop updates on mail page as lists are highly duplicative.

3. I'm 100% for 'Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion' - short and sweet.

4. Corporate responses have so much variety that it is impossible (and highly subjective) to try to categorize them. Plus it does change by day. I agree on adding a column "Remaining business relationships with Russia". Short of that it would be impossible due to objectively categorize.

5. Yale list and many other try to separate "good" companies from "bad" - very subjective. The goal is to show what company did and didn't do. Viewers have to judge for themselves based on facts, not subjective category which can be out of date. (thanks Wissen4all for suggesting a list, but I don't think any of us would be able to get this level of details from the companies to do proper categorization.

DmitryShpak (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Created new page Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion and copied all data + updated columns.

Thanks, Send a message: @Dmitry_

DmitryShpak (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Rolled back decommissioning

I rolled back this page's decommissioning. I agree there is a lot of duplicative effort, but that work has been localized into a few main pages. There have been many individual contributors to this particular page, so I propose that we keep it; even though some aspects of it are a little clunky, it's becoming a good repository! GeorgeHenryBorrow (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Universities

Are colleges and universities considered companies? Separate list? Separate Section? Kire1975 (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

== 1. @Kire1975, Universities are not Companies. For any non-corporate response please go to [[1]] or at least 2022 boycott of Russia and Belarus - there should be a place for Educational Organizations response

2. @GeorgeHenryBorrow, "I rolled back this page's decommissioning." - Can you just stop? We can't have this page with just a subset of info (some obsolete) to keep as active, confusing everyone. How much content did you add in the last few days? I see only rollbacks. Just please stop any and all rollbacks. DmitryShpak (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@DmitryShpak: Hello. It's a bit of a problem that this article was forked to a new title with very similar content, and that an attempt was made to "decommission" it, like a legacy page on a website. There are a few things that can be done with this article:

• we can propose to merge it fully to Corporate responses to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine‎, and redirect there,
• we can propose to merge this article to more than one article, as a split, and then decide where the redirect should go,
• we can merge any new content on this page to the new one, and then redirect to the new one. There were merge proposal templates on the article earlier today - not sure who deleted those templates, and why.

But there's no such thing as a "decommissioned article" on English Wikipedia. Many editors contributed to this article, and there is no proper attribution of this at the new articles where the content was copied, per content licensing requirements: please see Wikipedia:Merging. Storchy (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Storchy I totally see this is not clean. I was fairly new to wiki and tried to move that page but at the time was not able to and format of the page was not fully compatible (add/remove columns), so I just copied all content to new page, reviewed/updated/deleted incorrect info and citations. Not clean. I get it.

I also moved in similar content from two other pages Reactions to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and 2022 boycott of Russia and Belarus -- this is just a very large clean up / merge project. There is really nothing to merge left! Essentially we have two very similar pages, but one is more updated. Any suggestions on best way?

Thanks DmitryShpak (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah it's clear to me that you were acting with the best of intentions, and thanks for the work you're putting in. I don't know the best way to solve this, but there must be one or more solutions that respect the edit history: maybe a more experienced editor can weigh in here. Storchy (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

new russian "brands" / russian reaction

Vkusno i tochka replaces mc donalds e.g. 213.55.225.118 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Logos

Is it possible to add logos alongside companies to the table chart? Let me know. Thanks. FireDragonValo (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 August 2023

---

List of companies that applied sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War → List of companies that left or reduced trade with Russia during the Russo-Ukrainian War – better describes the companies in this list.  —Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Tens of thousands of companies around the world apply sanctions but are not listed, a number on this list do not have sanctions that apply to them, but have reduced their presence in, or left Russia, for moral or other unrelated reasons. Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)