Over the past two years, many global corporations have scaled back or exited the Russian market, citing concerns over the geopolitical climate and sanctions-related risks. However, a number of well-known Western companies continue to operate in Russia — directly or indirectly — often through complex ownership structures or transitional strategies. While officially committed to complying with international guidelines, these firms are finding ways to balance commercial interests with regulatory and reputational pressures.
This article examines three notable examples where major international businesses have opted to maintain some level of involvement in Russia: the joint venture between AB InBev and Anadolu Efes, the case of Leroy Merlin’s transformation into Lemana Pro, and the continued operations of UniCredit.
AB InBev, Anadolu Efes and the Long Road to Exit
In March 2022, brewing giant AB InBev publicly announced that it would relinquish any financial benefit from its Russian joint venture with Turkish partner Anadolu Efes. The move included a commitment to divest its 50% stake in the InBev Efes enterprise. However, more than two years later, the process remains unfinished — and the company’s presence in the Russian beer market has not fully ceased.
AB InBev initially stated in an April 2022 press release that it would sell its stake. Negotiations continued for over 18 months, culminating in a revised agreement in December 2023. According to the announcement, AB InBev would not receive immediate payment upon closing — a point that was presented as a sign of disengagement, although future compensation was not ruled out.
There appears to be a degree of strategic ambiguity in this approach. While the company downplayed the materiality of any future payments, reports suggest that potential sums could reach several hundred million dollars. Meanwhile, AB InBev continues to hold a 25% stake in Anadolu Efes it self, maintaining indirect exposure to the Russian market.
The regulatory process in Russia also contributed to delays. Formal approval of the deal by local authorities was first requested in December 2023, but this application was rejected in August 2024. A second attempt followed in October. As of early September 2025, the AB InBev Efes brewing company announced a name change to Drinks Together, and the deal remains pending.
Throughout this period, InBev Efes has continued operating in Russia — producing beverages, maintaining distribution, and contributing to the tax base. While competitors like Heineken and Carlsberg have completed their exits, AB InBev’s position remains unique among major international brewers. It reflects the challenges of separating from a long-standing partnership while trying to meet expectations from diverse global stakeholders.
Leroy Merlin, Lemana Pro and the Strategy of Continuity
The French home improvement retailer Leroy Merlin presents a different kind of case — one that illustrates how companies can seek continuity while formally distancing themselves from their Russian operations.
Following public scrutiny in 2022, Leroy Merlin transferred control of its Russian business to a newly established entity based in Dubai: Lemana Pro. This company was formed by former managers of the Russian subsidiary and took over day-to-day operations. However, supply chains, commercial infrastructure, and internal systems remained largely unchanged.
This “transition” allowed the parent company to publicly reduce its exposure while ensuring business continuity in a key consumer market. According to industry observers, Lemana Pro still maintains communication with European counterparts, though it now operates as an independent brand within Russia.
Despite the restructuring, the business continues to contribute significantly to the Russian economy. According to local financial disclosures, the entity paid substantial taxes in 2023, and remains one of the leading players in the home improvement segment.
While Leroy Merlin has expressed support for peace and distanced itself from any political associations, the arrangement highlights how corporate realignments can offer flexibility — enabling companies to navigate sanctions regimes while minimizing disruptions to business.
UniCredit — Operational Continuity with Regulatory Caution
UniCredit, one of Europe’s largest banking groups, has taken a more cautious but consistent approach. While it has significantly reduced its cross-border activities in Russia and halted new business with sanctioned parties, its local subsidiary continues to provide banking services to domestic clients.
As of 2025, UniCredit’s Russian division maintains a substantial footprint, with over 3,000 employees and a network of branches. In 2023, it reported solid financial performance, with net profits approaching $500 million — a notable contribution to the group’s overall results.
The bank has previously explored the possibility of divesting its Russian operations, holding preliminary discussions with potential buyers. However, no transaction has materialized. UniCredit has stated that it remains committed to ensuring stability for clients and fulfilling contractual obligations.
Recent media reports have indicated that the bank is seen by Russian authorities as a reliable international player. Yet UniCredit emphasizes that its actions are strictly guided by regulatory compliance and risk management frameworks.
The UniCredit case demonstrates how multinational financial institutions seek to strike a balance between compliance, business continuity, and reputational considerations — particularly when local operations serve millions of clients and employees.
Conclusion: Between Compliance and Continuity
For companies like AB InBev, Leroy Merlin (via Lemana Pro), and UniCredit, operating in Russia today requires careful navigation. While many global brands have exited the market entirely, others have opted for more nuanced strategies: indirect ownership, delayed exits, and localized operational autonomy.
These decisions are shaped by a complex mix of commercial, legal, and ethical factors. In some cases, the process of withdrawal is slower than anticipated — not necessarily due to unwillingness, but because of structural complexity, regulatory timelines, and long-term commitments.
Ultimately, these examples show that the path to disengagement is rarely straightforward. In an interconnected global economy, companies often find themselves walking a tightrope between international expectations and local realities.
