GR-стратегии транснациональных компаний (на примере пивоваренных компаний в России)
В ВКР «GR-strategies of transnational companies in Russia (case of brewing industries)» предлагается исследование GR-стратегии международных пивоваренных компаний, действующих в России. В современном мире крупная корпорация является признанным участником политических процессов, поскольку ведет деятельность по оказанию влияния на принятие политических решений и формирование политического курса. Пивоваренная отрасль в России является одной из самых прозрачных. Тем не менее, она достаточно жестко регулируется, постоянно вводятся новые ограничения: увеличение акциза в геометрической прогрессии, приравнивание пива к крепкому алкоголю и распространение на него 171 ФЗ, запрет производства пива в пластиковой таре более 1,5 литров и другие. Данная работа анализирует, как пивоваренные компании реагируют на эти ограничения, какие инструменты для влияния на органы государственной власти используют, из чего состоит GR-стратегия и какую роль в GR транснациональных компаний играют бизнес ассоциации. Единицами анализа выступают 3 транснациональные компании, контролирующие более 80% российского пивоваренного рынка. Это AB InBev, Heineken, Carlsberg group. Теоретико-методологической основой исследования выступают плюрализм, неокорпоративизм, сетевой подход. Ключевыми методами исследования является кейс-стади и метод интервью. На основании проведенного исследования автор делает выводы о том, каким образом транснациональные пивоваренные компании выстраивают GR деятельность в России, в чем заключается их GR –стратегия и насколько успешно она реализуется.
Relevance. In the modern world, a large corporation is an acknowledged participant in political processes, an influential socio-political institution that in some cases is comparable with the state. We are talking about transnational corporations that pretend to stand on a level with national states, and their influence on the political life of countries and regions becomes the object of research on political science.
At the heart of the relationship between the state and transnational companies lies the principle of interdependence. Companies pay budget-forming taxes, create jobs, engage in social policy. The state provides companies with “rules of the game”, creating laws and monitoring their implementation. GR-departments of multinational companies engaged in the alignment of such a relationship, try to influence the political background and political decision-making. In government relations (GR) of transnational companies an important place is occupied by business unions and associations, which open a large field for research. Building the participants of the brewing industry of effective communications with authorities is one of the most complex and ambiguous directions of the modern Russian GR. The brewing industry is represented by 80% foreign capital. In the current geopolitical trend, sanctions and also the program for fight against alcoholism, it is increasingly difficult to lobby the interests of brewers effectively. Western companies very tightly regulate the costs of GR-activities. These companies have internal codes and extensive experience of lobbying practices around the world. In addition, Russian legislation strictly controls the activities of non-residents. Therefore, the brewing industry has exemplary GR, which are transparent and exclude corruption and shadow practices.
Before the economic crisis of 2008-2009, the Russian corporate GR was mostly of an “individual” nature, GR-coalitions and business associations rarely acted as its participants. After 2009, the business associations took on a special niche in GR, became prominent players in GR-strategies of corporations.
The brewing industry faced serious problems in 2011, when amendments to the 171 Federal Law equated beer to strong alcohol. Since then, the industry has become severely regulated, the government has introduced many restrictions that hinder the consistent economic development of brewing companies. The state implements the anti-alcohol program, so it increasingly limits the brewing industry. For example, the state banned the release of products in plastic containers of more than 1.5 liters, in geometric progression increases excises, limited advertising, introduced a unified state automated information system for the production and sale of beer, and much more. In these conditions, large brewing companies began to optimize their business and unite. GR-departments began actively resisting the imposed restrictions.
Research work on GR-strategy of the brewing industry in Russia is not much, although this is one of the most transparent industries in terms of financial costs for lobbying. The author of this work decided to study the case of the brewers, to find out which GR strategy is most effective, to find the agenda, to find out what resources the companies use to successfully interact with state authorities in the conditions of economic instability, sanctions, business combination.
The above indicates that the topic of research is relevant and in demand both in the theoretical sense and in the practical activities of transnational corporations and public authorities. In order to make scientific recommendations for improving the effectiveness of GR mechanisms, it is necessary to analyze the behavior of transnational companies in the context of the Russian political system, analyze the role of non-profit organizations in the interaction of brewing companies and the state, analyze the GR strategy and the factors determining it.
Analysis of the literature. From the beginning of the 20th century, political scientists began to study the representation of interests. A. Bentley и D. Truman proposed to view politics as a sphere of rivalry between interest groups. Bentley considered the political process as a bilateral pressure of groups in the struggle for state power.
Throughout the century, many brilliant theoretical and empirical studies were published concerning the formation of interest groups in the US and Europe, the interaction of the state and business. (Bentley A., Parsons T., Truman D., Olson M., Libman A., Schmitter P., Dahl R., Heywood A).
The study of the interaction between business and government is connected with the theory of lobbyism (J. Berry, F. Baumgartner, B. Leech, J. Birnbaum, D. DeKiefer, L. Milbrath, D. Kimball, M. Hojnacki).
A special place is occupied by works studying the theory of functional representation of interests, within which three basic approaches to research are distinguished: pluralism (R. Dahl, C. Lindblom, М. Olsen, D. Truman, E. Fraenkel), corporatism (A.Cawson, Lembruch J., С. Перегудов, Schimitter P.), political networks (Wasserman S., Faust K., Scott J., Borgatti S.).
In Russia, the problems of the relationship between business and government, as well as the influence of business on the political process, began to be actively studied since the 90s of the twentieth century. Russian studies of Government Relations have different orientations. The relationship between business and government is seen in the context of the dynamics of the relationship between the ruling elites (Gelman V., Gaman-Golutvina O.V., Kryshtanovskaya O.). Another direction analyzes the interaction of companies and leaders at the level of public authorities (Libman A., Lyubimov A., Nelson L., Kuzes I., Peregudov S., Lapina N., Semenenko I., Tolstyh P.). Part of the research refers to the concept of “Russian oligarchy” (Frye T., Zudin A., Peregudov S.).
Some authors approach the conceptualization of the system of representation of interests from the theoretical side, they try to identify models of representation reflecting the specifics of Russian reality (Pavroz A., Zolotareva E., Lapina N.).
Despite the fact that there are many works on Russian government relations and lobbying; studies analyzing the behavior of transnational companies in the Russian market and their interaction with authorities do not exist. Small analytical publications make the media or agencies under private orders.
Research Question that is posed in this paper: how do transnational brewing companies build GR activities in Russia, what is their main GR-strategy and how well is it implemented?
To answer the research question, we will perform a number of tasks:
• Analyze theories and approaches to the study of government relations;
• To consider the peculiarities of the brewing industry in Russia and determine its role in the political process;
• Analyze the lobbying of excises by the brewing industry;
• To consider the government relations of the brewing industry in relation to 171 Federal Laws;
• Analyze the government relations of the brewing industry on licensing issues;
• Consider the government relations of the brewing industry regarding the banning of a plastic bottle of more than 1.5 liters;
• To study the government relations of the brewing industry in relation to advertising;
• Analyze the government relations of the brewing industry in relation to the state information system;
• Analyze the features of GR-strategy based on interviews with representatives of brewing companies.
Object of study: relations between the state and business in Russia.
Subject of study: GR-activity of transnational brewing companies in Russia.
Operationalization of the main terms of the study. The central place is occupied by the concept of government relations (GR). GR is seen as the use of communicative technologies to influence government decisions. GR is an activity for building relations between different social groups and state power. This activity includes the collection and processing of information on the activities of the government, the preparation and dissemination of information on the positions of interest groups, the impact on political decision-making (lobbying).
Another important concept for this research is the GR-strategy. GR strategy is a set of mechanisms and technologies, combined in a strategy for building relations with public authorities.
GR campaign is a system of events united for building relations with public authorities within the framework of a specific GR strategy.
GR mechanisms and tools are various methods used in the activities of companies in interaction with public authorities, with the aim of influencing political decision-making and policy-making.
Hypothesis of this study: the brewing industry in Russia is one of the most transparent in interaction with the state; the brewing industry companies carry out open GR-activity.
Theoretical and methodological basis for this study is theories of pluralism, neocorporativism and the network approach.
Within the framework of the theory of pluralism, stakeholders are independent, compete with each other and are not controlled by the state. The adoption of political decisions reflects the balance between groups of interests within society.
The neo-corporatist approach puts forward the formalities in the interaction of business and the state. The main actors on the business side are associations and unions.
The network approach connects all participants to the general political and administrative network. The influence of actors increases with the proximity of their location to the nodes of networks.
It seems that these theories are best suited to describe the interaction of transnational brewing companies and state authorities in Russia.
The key method of research is the case-study method. We consider the cases of GR transnational companies of the brewing industry in Russia in six main areas: excise taxes, separate regulation, licensing, state information system, plastic packaging, advertising. Units of analysis are three transnational companies that control more than 80% of the Russian brewing market. This is AB InBev Efes Group, Heineken, the Baltic (Carlsberg group). In addition, to collect information, the author used the method of interview. This allowed to obtain unique information directly from the developers of GR-strategy and to do a deeper analysis.
The author of this research uses primary and secondary empirical material, and on its basis conducts research that identifies the opportunities and problems of studying GR transnational corporations in Russia using the example of the brewing industry.
The theoretical significance of the study is due to a systematic study of the concept of government relations in the context of its impact on the adoption of government decisions. The main provisions of the work and conclusions contribute to the study of existing in Russia GR-strategies, mechanisms and prospects for the development of interaction between government and business.
The practical significance of the research is the possibility of using the presented materials and the results of the research in further research work. The results of this study can be used in the activities of companies, public authorities, business associations to optimize the existing GR system. On the basis of this study, practical recommendations can be developed on how to build relations between international companies and state authorities.
Structure of the study. The goal and objectives of the study determined the structure of the study, which consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion, a list of literature and applications. In the first chapter the main theoretical and methodological approaches to GR are analyzed. The main GR classifications and models, tools and mechanisms were studied. A special attention was paid to the study of the concept of lobbyism. The analysis of relations between government and business in modern Russia concludes the chapter. The second chapter gives a description of the brewing industry, analyzed the problems in GR, which faced the brewing industry and their solutions, namely the increase of excises, the ban on advertising, separate regulation, the prohibition of plastic packaging, the attempt to license and the introduction of the state information system. In addition, an analysis of interviews with leading GR specialists from Russian offices of companies AB InBev Efes Group, Heineken, Carlsberg group is offered. In conclusion, the main conclusions of the research on the current situation in the GR brewing industry are formulated, its most important results are summarized, the topical aspects of the problem posed that require further study are highlighted. In the application three interviews mentioned above are documented
Assembly U.N.G. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. : United Nations Publications, 2008. 48 с.
• Baumgartner F., Berry J., Hojnacki M., Kimball D., Leech B. Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago, 2009.
• Bauer T. Responsible Lobbying: Conceptual Foundations // Responsible Lobbying. : Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, 2017. С. 85–122.
• Bentley A. F. The process of government: A study of social pressures. – Routledge, 2017.
• Birnbaum J. The Lobbyists. New York, 1993; DeKiefer D. The Citizen’s Guide to Lobbying Congress. Chicago, 2007.
• Borgatti S. P. et al. Network analysis in the social sciences //science. 2009. Т. 323. №. 5916. P. 892-895.
• Cawson A. Corporatism and political theory. – Blackwell, 1986.
• Campos N.F., Giovannoni F. Lobbying, corruption and political influence // Public Choice. 2007. Т. 131. № 1–2. С. 1–21.
• Dahl R. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971.
• Dahl R. Who Governs: Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven, 1961.
• Dahl R., Lindblom Ch. Politics, Economics and Welfare. New York: Harper, 1976. P. 34.
• Denisov D. Business lobbying and government relations in Russia: The need for new principles //Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Fellowship paper. 2010. Т. 27. P.2-3, 12-17.
• Fraenkel E. Deutschland und die westlichen Demokratien. Frankf. / M., 1991.
• Freeman R. E., Wicks A. C., Parmar B. Stakeholder theory and “the corporate objective revisited” //Organization science. – 2004. – Т. 15. – №. 3. – С. 364-369.
• Frye T. Capture or exchange? Business lobbying in Russia //Europe-Asia Studies. 2002. Т. 54. №. 7. P. 1017-1036.
• Grosse R. International Business and Government Relations in the 21st Century. Cambridge 2005
• Galbraith J. K. The new industrial society. New York: Signet., 1967.
• Gel’man V., Tarusina I. Studies of political elites in Russia: issues and alternatives //Communist and Post-Communist Studies. 2000. Т. 33. №. 3. P. 311-329.
• Grant Thomas. Lobbying, Government Relations, and Campaign Finance Worldwide. Oxford., 2006.
• Georgiou G. Corporate lobbying on accounting standards: Methods, timing and perceived effectiveness //Abacus. – 2004. – Т. 40. – №. 2. – С.219-237.
• Govorun A., Marques I., Pyle W. The political roots of intermediated lobbying: evidence from Russian enterprises and business associations //Business and Politics. – 2016. – Т. 18. – №. 4. – С. 395-433.
• Hall P. A. Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. – Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2001.
• Heywood A. Politics. New York: Palgrave, 2002. Vol.2. .Р. 453.
• Hillman A. J., Keim G. D. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What’s the bottom line? //Strategic management journal. – 2001. – С. 125-139.
• Hojnacki M., Kimball D. Organized Interests and the Decision of Whom to Lobby in Congress // American Political Science Review. Vol. 92. 1998. № 4. P. 775–790;
• Iwasaki I. Evolution of the government–business relationship and economic performance in the former soviet states–order state, rescue state, punish state //Economics of Planning. – 2003. – Т. 36. – №. 3. – С. 223-257.
• Korbonski A. The decline and rise of pluralism in East Central Europe, 1949–1989, or how not to see the forest for the trees //Communist and Post-Communist Studies. – 1993. – Т. 26. – №. 4. – С. 432-
• Klein W. Business Associations: Agency, Partnerships, Llcs, and Corporations, 2017 Statutes and Rules. : West Academic, 2017. 426 с.
• Lane J. E., Ersson S. O. The new institutional politics: Performance and outcomes. – Psychology Press, 2000. С.247-273.
• Lembruch J. Neo-Corporatism in comparative perspective //Pattterns of Corporatist Policy-making. London: Sage. 1982.
• Libman A. Government-Business Relations and Catching Up Reforms in the CIS //The European Journal of Comparative Economics. 2006. Т. 3. №. 2. P. 263-288.
• Lindblom C. E. Politics and markets. 1982.
• Lobbying.ru | Слово из словаря [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.lobbying.ru/dictionary_word.php?id=42 (дата обращения: 21.05.2018).
• Mack С. S. Business, Politics, and the Practice of Government Relations. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1997.
• March J. G., Olsen J. P. The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life //American political science review. – 1983. – Т. 78. – №. 3. – С. 734-749.
• Milbrath L. The Washington Lobbyists. Chicago, 1976.
• Mulcahy S., Transparency International. Lobbying in Europe: hidden influence, privileged access., 2015.
• Olson M. The logic of collective action. Harvard University Press, 2009. Т. 124.
• Olsen M. E. Participatory pluralism //Chicago: Nelson-Hall. 1982.
• Parsons T. On the concept of political power //Proceedings of the American philosophical society.1963. Т.107. №. 3. P. 262.
• Peregudov S. The Oligarchical Model of Russian Corporatism //Contemporary Russian Politics. 2001. P. 259-268.
• Schmitter P. C., Streeck W. The organization of business interests: Studying the associative action of business in advanced industrial societies. MPIfG discussion paper, 1999. №. 99/1. Р. 58-65.
• Schimitter P., Lembruch G. Trends towards corporatist intermediation //Trends Toward Corporatist Intermediation. 1979.
• Scott J. Social network analysis. Sage, 2017.
• Truman D. B. The governmental process: political interests and public opinion. – A. Knopf, 1951.
• Yakovlev A. The evolution of business – state interaction in Russia: From state capture to business capture? // Europe-Asia Studies. 2006. Т. 58. № 7. С. 1038-1041. (весь 1033–1056)
• Wasserman S., Faust K. Social network analysis: Methods and applications. – Cambridge university press, 1994. Т. 8.
• Ашин Г. К. Элитизм и демократия //Общественные науки и современность. – 1996. – №. 5. – С. 59-70.
• Гайнутдинов Р. И. Модели взаимодействия бизнеса и государства в глобализирующемся мире: сравнительный анализ (Россия, Санкт-Петербург) //Проблемы современной экономики. – 2006. – №. 1-2. – С.121-124.
• Гаман-Голутвина О. В. Политические элиты России: Вехи исторической эволюции. М., 2006.
• Гельман В., Бычкова О. Экономические акторы и локальные режимы в крупных городах России //Неприкосновенный запас. – 2010. – №. 2. – С. 70.
• GR и лоббизм: взаимодействие бизнеса и органов власти / под ред. В.А. Ачкасовой, И.Е. Минтусова, О.Г. Филатовой. М.: Издательство Юрайт, 2015.
• Золотарева Е. В. Группы интересов в политике //Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Cерия: Политология. 1999. №. 1. С. 63-75.
• Зудин А.Ю., Неокорпоративизм в России? (Государство и бизнес при Владимире Путине) // Pro et Contra._2001. T. 6. № 4
• Зудин А. Ю. Олигархия как политическая проблема российского посткоммунизма //Общественные науки и современность. 1999. №. 1. С. 45-65.
• Игошин И.Н. Институциональные системы и их искажения // Вестник Московского Университета. – Сер. 12, Политические науки. – 2003. – № 5. – С. 39-51.
• Кинякин А. А., Матвеенков Д. О. Government relations как форма общественно-политической и бизнес коммуникации: к определению понятий // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Политология. — № 1. — 2009.
• Коробейникова Н.Ю. GR-коммуникации в условиях развития современного российского бизнеса (на примере компаний «Вымпелком» и «Связьинвест») // Бизнес.Общество.Власть. 2010. № 3. С. 52–69.
• Крыштановская О. В. Анатомия российской элиты. М., 2005.
• Лапина Н.Ю. Модели взаимодействия бизнеса и власти в российских регионах и типы предпринимательского делового поведения // Российское предпринимательство: Стратегия, власть, менеджмент. М.: Институт социологии РАН, 2000. С. 45-55.
• Лапина Н. Ю., Чирикова А. Е. Региональные элиты в РФ: модели поведения и политические ориентации. – ИНИОН РАН, 1999.
• Любимов А. П. Лоббизм как конституционно-правовой институт. М., 1998.
• Любимов А. П. История лоббизма в России. – Фонд “Либеральная миссия”, 2005.
• Нельсон Л., Кузес И. Группы интересов и политический срез российских экономических реформ // Полис. 1995. № 6. С. 81–86.
• Николаев А. В. Антиалкогольные кампании XX века в России //Вопросы истории. 2008. №. 11. С. 67-79.
• Павроз А. В. Законодательное утверждение лоббизма в России в контексте глобальной конкуренции юрисдикций //Государственная служба. – 2011. – №. 3. – С. 15-1.
• Павроз А. В. Эффективность плюралистической модели формирования политики: классическое обоснование и современные интерпретации //Вестник Московского университета. Серия 12: Политические науки. 2015. №. 4. С. 8.
• Павроз А. В. Этические принципы лоббизма в условиях современной демократии //Политическая экспертиза: ПОЛИТЭКС. – 2015. – Т. 11. – №. 2. – С. 87-98.
• Павроз А. В. Government Relations как институт социально-политического взаимодействия //Политическая экспертиза: ПОЛИТЭКС. – 2005. – №. 2. – С. 242-244.
• Перегудов С. П. Ренессанс корпоративизма? //Куда идет Россия. 1998. P. 130-139.
• Перегудов С. П. Политическое представительство интересов: опыт Запада и проблемы России //Полис. Политические исследования. – 1993. – №. 4. – С. 115-124.
• Перегудов С. П., Лапина Н. Ю. Семененко И. С. Группы интересов и российское государство. М., 1999.
• Перегудов С. П. Организованные интересы и государство: смена парадигм // Полис. 1994. №2. С. 76–87.
• Радаев В.В. Социология рынков: к формированию нового направления. – М.: ГУ ВШЭ, 2003. – С. 135.
• Радаев В. В., Котельникова З. В. Изменение структуры потребления алкоголя в контексте государственной алкогольной политики в России //Экономическая политика. 2016. Т. 11. №. 5. С. 2.
• Рейтинг лучших GR-специалистов России. Выпуск 3 / 2011 [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.gr.ru/content/56 (дата обращения: 22.03.2018)
• Рыбаков А.В. Трансформация политических институтов // Власть. – 2003. – № 5. – С. 49-54.
• Рыбаков А.В. Общественные эффекты институционализации политико-властных отношений // Социально- гуманитарные знания: научно-образовательное издание. – 03/2004 – № 2. – С.146-156.
• Сморгунов Л. В., Шерстобитов А. С. Политические сети: Теория и методы анализа //М.: Аспект Пресс. – 2014.320 с.
• Стратегии региональных элит: экономика, модели власти, политический выбор / Н. Лапина, А. Чирикова; Рос. акад. наук. Ин-т науч. информации по обществ. наукам. – М., 2000. – 198 с.
• Такала И. Веселие Руси: история алкогольной проблемы в России. Журнал Нева, 2002. С.32-84.
• Толстых П. А. Практика лоббизма в Государственной Думе Федерального Собрания Российской Федерации. М., 2006.
• Толстых П. А. Субъектный статус лоббизма и Government Relations //Исторические, философские, политические и юридические науки, культурология и искусствоведение. Вопросы теории и практики. 2012. №. 4-2. С. 195-200.
• Тульчинский Г. Л. Корпоративная социальная ответственность: технологии и оценка эффективности //М.: Юрайт. – 2014. – Т. 338
• Туровский Р.Ф. Власть и бизнес в регионах России: современные процессы обновления региональной элиты // Региональная элита в современной России. М., 2005. С. 143-178.
• Урбан М. Социальные отношения и политические практики в посткоммунистической России // Полис. Политические исследования. 2002. № 4. С. 66–85.
• Формирование системы цивилизованного лоббизма в России: GR и проблемы эффективности взаимодействия общества и власти / Под ред. В.И. Быкова, Л.Н. Галенской, Л.В. Сморгунова. СПб., 2006.
• Шмиттер Ф. Неокорпоратизм //Полис. Политические исследования. – 1997. – №. 2. – С. 14-22.
• Яковлев А.А., Бизнес-ассоциации в России: внутренняя структура, эволюция отношений с государством, роль в модернизации экономики / Под ред/ А.А. Яковлева. Сер. «Научные доклады: независимый экономический анализ»/ № 2.; М.:: МОНФ; Автономная некоммерческая организация «Проекты для будущего: научные и образовательные технологии», 2010, 190 с.
• Яковлев А.А. Власть, бизнес и движущие силы экономического развития России: до и после «дела Юкоса» // Общественные науки и современность. – 2005. – № 1 .
• А.Яковлев, А.Зудин, В.Голикова, А.Говорун, Е.Астафьева, Г.Гарифуллина. Бизнес-ассоциации в России: внутренняя структура, эволюция отношений с государством, роль в модернизации экономики. // Москва, МОНФ, 2010, 190 с.
• Ясин Е. Бремя государства и экономическая политика //Вопросы экономики. – 2002. – №. 11. – С.30.
Последние выполненные заказы
Хочешь уникальную работу?
Больше 3 000 экспертов уже готовы начать работу над твоим проектом!
5 (21 отзыв)
5 (158 отзывов)
4.7 (96 отзывов)
0 (13 отзывов)
5 (1241 отзыв)
4.9 (826 отзывов)
4.9 (20 отзывов)
4.8 (40 отзывов)
5 (44 отзыва)
