The Kremlin’s seizure of Rockwool’s Russian factories reinforces a reality that has been evident for years: Russia is a hostile and unpredictable environment in which foreign companies’ assets exist at the mercy of an oppressive regime. B4Ukraine has repeatedly warned Rockwool, including in person, that remaining in Russia is not a sound business strategy but a growing liability. The EU, the G7, and all governments committed to a rules-based international order need to urge companies to sever ties with Russia and issue clear market guidance warning of the escalating dangers of continued operations in the aggressor state.
For Rockwool, the risk of asset seizure was foreseeable, predictable, and largely avoidable. Nevertheless, the company chose to stay, accepting that risk while potentially enabling Russian war crimes and exposing its shareholders to severe financial and reputational harm. What may once have appeared as short-term profit has now translated into long-term exposure.
The company’s touting of donations to Ukraine is overshadowed by its contributions to Russia’s economy. According to the KSE Institute, Rockwool generated $1.4 billion in revenue in Russia between 2022 and 2024, while paying the Kremlin $81 million in profit tax alone (with total taxes likely significantly higher). According to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, businesses cannot justify rights abuses in one area by supporting them in another. No amount of their “charitable gestures” can offset the harm caused by enriching a regime responsible for war crimes.
Rockwool has claimed that continuing operations in Russia prevented the government from immediately recouping billions through direct seizure. This argument is fundamentally flawed. Remaining in the market did not eliminate the risk of expropriation; it merely deferred it while allowing the Russian state to continue extracting value through taxes, labor, production, and technology. The outcome is clear: the assets have now been seized regardless. Staying did not protect Rockwool’s property; it prolonged the company’s exposure while contributing to the Russian economy during a time of war. No company operating in Russia is immune, regardless of its industry, size, and willingness to exit the Russian market.
Against this backdrop, Rockwool’s assertion that it will defend its rights under the Denmark–Russia bilateral investment treaty rings hollow. Russia has systematically dismantled the very concepts of shareholder protection, investor security, and property rights on which such treaties depend.
The former CEO’s statement that Rockwool would withdraw from Russia only if Moscow launched a nuclear attack now sounds more ironic than ever, underscoring the reckless irresponsibility of companies that continue to operate in Russia.
This episode should serve as a warning to all remaining companies. Waiting passively for nationalization is not a risk-management strategy. The least risky option is a swift exit, writing off Russian assets and pursuing remedies through international arbitration. Corporate leaders should stop asking how to avoid “provoking” Moscow and instead focus on how to disengage swiftly, responsibly, and decisively.
The B4Ukraine Coalition recognizes the difficult operating conditions facing companies that remain in Russia. At the same time, we must underscore the profound failure of corporate foresight and risk management since 2014, following Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea. Western companies whose assets are now being seized did not stumble into this situation by accident — they chose to remain. They are now confronting the consequences of short-sighted leadership decisions driven by greed rather than responsibility.
Asset seizures have become a routine political weapon of the Russian state. According to the KSE Institute, foreign-owned assets still stranded in Russia total approximately $127 billion, while more than $57 billion has already been seized and transferred to local firms or state entities since 2022. These figures lay bare the reality of investing in a rogue state that openly rejects the rule of law. The most prudent companies have already exited or are finalizing their departure; others are merely waiting to become the next target. The risks — financial, legal, and reputational, including potential complicity in war crimes — are disproportionately high. While a responsible exit without total asset loss may still be possible, the window is rapidly closing.