If I'm feeling a little sad at the sale of Cadbury, it isn't because I think Kraft is an evil, low-growth corporate raider.

As our recent Top Products survey confirmed, Kraft won the top launch in two categories, with Kenco and Mikado, and Mikado was also recognised for its excellent ad campaign. So, if we are to base our assessment of Kraft on its UK performance, at least, the case against has been overstated.

My sadness isn't purely because this is an old British brand either. Cadbury is based in the UK but it's a giant corporate in its own right, and has been known to outsource jobs to Eastern Europe, and to use its muscle to buy up companies with smaller balance sheets. Oh, and its CEO is American.

It's the fact that for Cadbury, CSR isn't the latest faddish addition to the annual report. Doing the right thing is in the company's DNA. Kraft has a corporate reputation agenda, as all big corporates now do, but it's a box to be ticked, while Cadbury's values reflect a genuine, soft-centred gooiness underneath the hard corporate shell.

I realise money talks, of course, and best of luck to Kraft. Let's hope it delivers the innovation that is key to continuing growth here. If Kraft's recent record with Terry's is anything to go by and let's face it, it's been driven virtually into the ground by rationalisation and competition then the grocers will be most unamused. But we shall have to see.

Where I feel anger it is with City analysts. This week, the likes of Legal & General and Standard Life were accusing Cadbury of selling out on the cheap. Yet it was these same analysts who caused the share price to dip to 568p prior to the takeover bid an undervaluation that allowed Kraft to strike.

Fair play to Irene Rosenfeld. She realised the incredible value in Cadbury. She understood the global reach, the growth potential and the defensive brand appeal of Cadbury's proposition in its core markets while dozy analysts were asleep on the job.

More opinion