We have given Aramco a low rating for keeping its Novomet stake because our ratings are based on withdrawing from existing business with Russia. However, if our methodology extended to what damage a company could do beyond withdrawing its own business, we would deduct a further 100 points in this case: Aramco – subject of course to the permission of the Saudi kingdom – could have stopped the oil price raise that is helping Russia offset the impact of boycotts and sanctions that we are advocating. Few companies in the world could so powerfully close the loop on Russia.

If anyone thinks this is beyond its power or without precedent, don’t forget that Saudi Arabia used such a strategy to try and put the U.S. shale industry out of business in 2014.

It’s sad that Aramco uses such power for profit and not morality. Indeed, the regime that controls the company and is accused of being behind the murder of a dissident journalist in its Istanbul embassy, is hardly one from which we can expect any moral satisfaction. Asking Prince Mohammed Bin Salman to find Putin abhorrent would be like asking him to engage in hypocrisy. It looks like Aramco isn’t going to be the secret bullet to undermine the Russian economy.

This reminds us of a soap opera with good and bad characters. In this case, you've got the person you don't want to be, the hero and the victim. No one needs guess which character the Chinese parent company plays.

The media reports paint different pictures about what exactly Huawei is doing about Russia. One thing is clear: it is not helping to clarify all of the speculation and ensuing confusion. The only parent company report we could find (reported by MSN) didn't even refer to the invasion or war but only to Western action ("still evaluating its response to Western sanctions on Russia"). Perhaps it should be evaluating its own sanctions on Russia! It is a typical Chinese anti-Western statement, which simultaneously avoids the elephant in the room. We are nevertheless giving credit for a Partial and Incomplete with a 1.7 Degree Score, very Partial and very Incomplete, based on balancing all the information in this story which has got more shades of red than a sunset, and recognizing that there were some media reports the company had furloughed staff and wasn't taking any new orders. We gave it a low Speed Score, first because of the late date but also because Huawei got a Chicken Penalty for not moving till after Cisco Systems and Ericsson did.

This is a rich story of intrigue, unconfirmed government pressure or influence, and if so, compliance with it at the top of the company (for fear of its leaders' careers or perhaps worse). The story is also one of soul-searching by employees living in a democracy that outweighed their financial interests to the point they could no longer stomach being apologists for a company influenced and admired by the Chinese regime, and finally employees who are victims of a war so wrong that it caused them no hesitation to speak out. It should be a lesson to corporations throughout the world acting immorally that employees may have a very different view and show moral courage that the company can't comprehend.

Some companies take a long time to make a move but have a lot to offer when they do. Other companies are swift but do very little. Then, we have Axa, which did almost nothing slowly. Axa’s Announcement came after peers such as Generali, earning it a Chicken Penalty, and after public criticism, earning it a Pressure Penalty.

Axa's Degree score of 0.7 is about as low as you can get without doing nothing. We don’t give much credit for stopping new business, plus it did not take any action on its investment in Reso Garantia, apart from removing directors. Leaving the board may send a signal but it does nothing to damage the Russian economy. Axa should look to peer company Zurich, which is divesting totally from Russia. As for its promise to stop investments in Russian assets, how many companies with the understanding of risk that the insurance industry has would do such a thing in the current climate? We therefore class this statement as a Red Herring.

The irony of waiting so long to do so little is compounded by then making such a strong statement against Russia. For that, we define Axa as a Big Talker.

Axa and Generali are competitors in the market, but they are also competitors in the ‘moral market’, to such an extent that it is difficult to separate one from the other. Both curtailed their directly owned business in Russia with carve-outs (making them Nibblers in our terminology). Both failed to make any move out of their investments in minority stakes in Russian businesses. And both resigned from the boards of those companies, as though that somehow makes it okay. Both can be admonished for the same deficiencies in a single breath.

This is a rare case of a company that wanted to do the right thing but was held back by its government’s determination to keep interests in Sakhalin. The Japanese Prime Minister said it is not Japan’s policy to withdraw from Sakhalin-II, but this does not legally tie Marubeni’s hands. Respecting your government may be a good thing in a democracy, but we believe there are higher moral callings.

It is unclear whether Marubeni is genuinely concerned for Ukraine or if it is shedding crocodile tears. Nevertheless, we commend Marubeni for what it has said: its statements since the invasion deserve its high-scoring Russia Denouncer status.

Words, however, are only one part of our rating. Even if the CEO genuinely had good intentions, the fact is that the company hasn’t taken any useful action. That makes it a Big Talker by our rules.

Mr. Kakinoki, every day that the invasion continues should give you more courage to practice what you preach. You can be the unshackled hero, free of your bonds.

Reading what banks have done about Russia is like playing a game of ‘Spot the Difference’. JPMorgan said it would be “unwinding” its Russian business, Goldman Sachs said it would be “winding down”. These two parrots said almost the same thing on the same day. Then, three others followed the parrots like sheep out of Russia, half-heartedly: Citi gave the excuse of “new business or clients”, HSBC “new business or customers” and BNP “any new business”. Either they must think the same way or be using the same PR strategist. These excuses make them all Nibblers.

Similarities aside, Citi’s statement was too vague to get many points from us. When will it finish the process of reducing its remaining operations? Its later statement that it may keep its Russian banking license alive makes its exit from Russia look less convincing. Against this picture, describing the invasion as ‘utterly heart-breaking’ forces us to classify Citi as a Big Talker. Breaking a moral boycott is itself heart-breaking.

Banding together with peers is worse than Citi misbehaving on its own. This adds to the contagion effect which is why we give Leader of the Pack bonuses to discourage sheeplike behavior. Besides, safety in numbers may seem like a clever strategy until you’re exposed as being in the doghouse, which is how we rate this bunch of banks. We are calling them all out for not getting out properly.

Citi should break ranks, burn its banking license, and get credit for launching a Domino Effect on the rest of the flock.

Sumitomo’s website lists a plethora of Activities in Russia. It responded over a month later than its peers Mitsubishi and Samsung C&T, which earned it a Chicken Penalty and a low Speed score. It is unclear why Sumitomo took so many weeks to lay out its plans. Perhaps it was busy trying to count so many Russian activities!

The company could not earn a high Degree score for words that don’t translate to any tangible or completed action, but it did earn a high Attitude score because of a large donation to Ukraine compared to its profits. It is a shame it could not be as generous with its actions, even more so when you consider its Exposure, which we calculated at a mere 1.3.

It fares well compared to Japanese peers Mitsui, Mitsubishi Corporation and Itochu. Like Marubeni, Sumitomo has at least said it will scale back. Sumitomo is not shackled by its government’s policy to hold onto Russian resource investments. It should use this freedom to break out of Russia.

It seems like Abbott and J&J have the same PR firm, or at least announced their very Partial withdrawals from Russia in the same way.

The model seems to work like this. Make an initial statement that reacts in shock to the invasion (both companies did so on 4 March). Say how terrible it is (both companies condemned the war in one way or another, getting Denouncer points from us). Make donations to Ukraine (which they both did). Then, think for a while about what they really should do. Abbott waited ten days versus J&J's three weeks. Otherwise, the actions were similar. Both continue to do business unless the products are deemed non-essential in some words by the company benefitting. Both are Confused Humanitarians. Both also said they would not make new investments, which we classify as Red Herrings because, in these times, it's hardly likely any Western company would pour money into Russia, and it has nothing to do with withdrawing from concrete business.

Like J&J, Abbott's initial generous donation, in the absence of any action, earned it a Do-gooder-do-badder classification. Its initial Denouncer words get the company a Big Talker classification for not putting its money where its mouth is. To make matters worse, when we consider what suspending "non-essential" products means in practice, it may be more of a non-event. The range – including nutritionals, vascular devices, diabetes car, vision care and pharmaceuticals – could all be argued to be essential depending on the definition used and its application. Indeed, we could not identify which of Abbott's products are still on the table. We also spotted no statement about how the non-essential cut would impact the company’s three factories in Russia or its approximately 3,500 Russian employees. Absent further explanation, the commitment to cease all advertising also looks weak since most sales may come from the salesforce and wholesale network. Weighing it all up, we are estimating the Degree of withdrawal at 1 point.

Back to the J&J comparison – Abbott got a slightly better moral rating because it moved faster. Although Abbott has higher Exposure to Russia, it also has more Power over Russia. The ratio of the two approximately equaled out, meaning both companies were looking at Return on Sacrifice opportunities of around 200%.