Western companies that pulled out of Russia after it invaded Ukraine in 2022—even ones that hesitated—have generally seen their reputations rise, according to a new study that suggests that firms can use geopolitical crises to burnish their brands.
Firms with strong environmental, social, and governance reputations saw more pronounced net buzz, according to Shankar Ganesan from the University of Notre Dame and Girish Mallapragada from Indiana University, whose paper went online in March and will appear in the forthcoming edition of the Journal of Public Policy and Marketing. The authors conclude that companies known for ethical governance were rewarded more when they aligned their actions with those values.
Interestingly, the study also uncovered that companies who hesitated, then pulled out after public pressure weren’t penalized for their cold feet. Firms that withdrew from Russia after their peers also saw increases in net buzz, meaning that the decision to exit later—rather than being seen as reactive or reluctant—helped them maintain or even boost public support. In short, it always pays to do the right thing even if it seems frightening at first.
The concept of “doing the right thing” also ties into national security. In an era of great state competition, as outlined in the 2022 U.S. National Security Strategy, the global reputation of U.S. firms is linked to perceptions of American leadership and values. Companies looking to sell dual-use technologies to the government and consumer, for example, may find that their standing with both the public and government stakeholders depends on how their corporate actions align with ethical governance—particularly in regions where political conflict and public scrutiny are high.
“Our findings highlight that corporate decisions made in response to geopolitical crises, such as withdrawing from Russia, do not occur in isolation,” Ganesan told Defense One in an email. “As U.S. companies face growing competition from Chinese firms, which may not adhere to the same geopolitical or ethical standards, the reputational benefits of socially responsible actions become even more pronounced. While firms from China and Russia may prioritize short-term economic gains, U.S. companies that align with stakeholder values, especially in the context of ESG, are likely to enjoy longer-term consumer loyalty and trust. This differentiation not only strengthens U.S. corporate positioning but also reinforces the country’s broader strategic objectives of promoting democracy, human rights, and global stability in competition with non-democratic regimes.”
Another conclusion is that these sorts of moves pay off much more in situations where the conflict is broadly known and understood by the public.
As the authors note in their paper, “If a conflict garners significant international attention, like the Russia–Ukraine war, the impact on brand buzz and consumer perceptions could follow patterns observed in this study. Second, the severity and scale of conflict could also matter. Firms’ actions might elicit strong consumer reactions in situations as severe and impactful as the Russia–Ukraine conflict. However, the reactions may be less intense or clear-cut in less pronounced conflicts.”
This is where the Biden administration’s response to the Ukraine conflict becomes significant. By declassifying intelligence and publicly revealing Russia’s invasion plans, the U.S. government helped shape global public opinion and build a coalition of democratic allies to support Ukraine.
