In its three decades in British retail, the lingerie brand Agent Provocateur, the 1990s brainchild of Dame Vivienne Westwood’s son, has rarely shied away from controversy.
Whether it be its daring window displays or that 2001 TV advert featuring Kylie Minogue riding a velvet bucking bronco, the brand has stirred up some strong emotions. But it had not, until now, been accused of inadvertently helping to finance a war in Europe.
The continued presence of Agent Provocateur-branded stores in Russia has, however, politicised the peekaboo bras, barely there corsets and sex toys, as the company has been placed on a database of firms that are said to be at risk of aiding and abetting Russian aggression, albeit unwittingly.
The Leave Russia project at the Kyiv School of Economics (KSE) argues that “international companies may exercise their influence by putting economic pressure and refusing to cooperate with the aggressor”. Otherwise, it is argued, they add value to the Russian economy.
There appear to be 10 Agent Provocateur franchise stores in Moscow, as listed on agentprovocateur.ru, a Russian-language website. Typically, a franchisee pays a royalty in order to operate under a brand name and sell its products.
Denis Dovgopoliy, a prominent venture capitalist in Ukraine who has backed efforts to persuade western firms to leave Russia, said a franchise model allowed “Russian entrepreneurs to build businesses and pay taxes”, although he said he held particular scorn for those that were “actively involved in the supply or technology chain of entire industries”.
Agent Provocateur was co-founded in 1994 by Westwood’s son Joe Corré and his now ex-wife Serena Rees, and has changed hands a number of times. In 2017, the brand was bought for about £30m by Four Holdings, the parent company of the fashion brand agency Four Marketing.
When asked about the continued presence of the brand in Russia, in light of the war in Ukraine, an Agent Provocateur spokesperson said the stores were “operated by franchisees under franchise/licensing agreements” under a “system set up by the previous owner of the business, many years ago”, and that the company itself “does not ‘operate’ in Russia”.
The spokesperson added that the number of stores was “very small”. “The agreements we have are confidential and so we are not free to discuss the terms or any negotiations relating to them,” she said. “However, it should be understood that you can’t just drop out of contractual arrangements without provisions lawfully allowing you to do so.”
She added that the Guardian appeared to be making a number of “false assumptions” and that the company “reserve[s] the right to seek all available remedies against you personally and your paper from the courts if you proceed to publish now or later inaccurate/defamatory claims”.
The franchise model has made it difficult for other big brands to extricate themselves from Russia, including Burger King, but the pressure on western companies remains fierce. Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, has repeatedly called for them to get out.
Last week, Zelenskiy’s chief economic adviser, Oleg Ustenko, said BP was earning “blood money” in retaining a 20% stake in the Russian state-controlled oil company Rosneft. BP has said it is disinvesting but Ustenko poured doubt on the reasons many companies were giving for staying. “If they apply some of the creative energy they used to enter the Russian market, I’m sure they can figure it out,” Ustenko said.
There are certainly a range of explanations provided for staying in Vladimir Putin’s Russia. The tea specialist company Ahmad Tea, based in Southampton, continues to offer Russians “the opportunity to get acquainted with this wonderful English tea” through joint ventures with local companies who control the operations.
A spokesperson said: “Under international humanitarian law, food and drink delivery to the population must continue unrestricted under the World Customs Organization sanction custom exemptions which protects the delivery of food for humanitarian purposes.”
Avon Cosmetics, which famously sells door to door, is also named on the Leave-Russia.org website. The company said it was considering its future. “In terms of operations in Russia, Avon is providing its representatives with the means to sustain their financial independence and is supplying their social selling businesses via a simplified and self-contained operation,” a spokesperson said. “We see this as critical support for women whose livelihoods depend on their Avon business and believe that restricting their access to selling products would have an outsize impact on women and children.”
Meanwhile, Wheely, a UK-headquartered luxury ride-hailing service that offers its services in London, Paris, the United Arab Emirates, Moscow and St Petersburg, has clashed with the Kremlin over its refusal to pass on real-time passenger location data but continues to provide services in Russia – partly, it said, on the grounds that its vehicles can help people escape.
A spokesperson said: “We are troubled by the continuing events in Ukraine, and our thoughts are with those affected by the war. Our priority remains the safety and wellbeing of our teams and customers, and we have been helping to fund the relocation of employees out of Russia and continue to donate to the Red Cross’s humanitarian efforts in the region.
“Meanwhile, fully private transportation in Russia matters more than ever right now. As the only privacy-first ride-hailing operator that has stood up to the Moscow authorities to protect customers’ data, we have taken the decision to continue operating our existing Russian subsidiary in a limited capacity, whilst refraining from further investment in the Russian market.
“We understand that not everyone will agree with our approach, but we aim to balance the need for people remaining in Russia to have a safe and private way to travel, with our continuing opposition to the war in Ukraine.”
