| There is no policy in the field of social responsibility of government and business in Russia Two years ago, at the XIII Congress of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, the President of Russia for the first time called on Russian business to become “socially responsible.” This call was taken up mainly by large private capital. He began an active dialogue with interested public groups, began to introduce modern international standards of socially oriented and environmental management, and published his first social reports. The activities of companies in this area are also aimed at building clear, regular and effective relationships with regional and local authorities, as well as with civil society.
Nevertheless, the development of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in Russia is in accordance with global trends, but so far very slowly, and does not actually cover small and medium-sized businesses. The fact is that social responsibility, presented to society in an open form in its most developed version, refers to the activities of companies in three “baskets” of responsibility: economic (quality and safety of products and services), environmental (reduction of harmful emissions and other burdens on the environment). environment) and social (development of one’s own team and external social projects, including charity). In our country, small and medium-sized businesses limit themselves only to local charity, presenting it as the main form of their social responsibility. This is not to say that this is bad. But this is certainly not enough.
CSR is an integral part of corporate governance, and not just PR. This activity, reflected in the system of economic, environmental and social indicators of sustainable development, is carried out through regular dialogue with society and is part of the strategic planning and management of companies. Therefore, decisions in the field of CSR are made by all interconnected levels of corporate governance - company owners, boards of directors and management. The essence of this work is that any production and economic decisions are made taking into account their social and environmental consequences for companies and for society. With this construction, CSR turns into a powerful factor in strategic development, strengthening business reputation and competitiveness, as well as growing the market capitalization of companies.
In Russia, in addition to the extremely weak involvement of small and medium-sized businesses in the CSR process, there is also no progressive development of this process among large and medium-sized state-owned companies. This is largely due to the problem of the opacity of Russian business. After all, the open publication of social reports or reports on sustainable development according to international standards implies voluntary additional disclosure of very important information in all areas. As shown by the results of a Standard & Poor's study, published in May of this year, the level of transparency of Russian state business is significantly lower than private business. In theory, everything should be the other way around: after all, these companies are state-owned, ultimately public, and therefore they should, by definition, be more open to society and more socially responsible.
This situation with the transparency of state-owned companies in Russia is not accidental.
Firstly, most large Russian state-owned companies are monopolists or oligopolists (they are among several large companies) in their sectors of the economy: oil and gas, communications, energy, transport, etc. In fact, having no real competition, they simply have no need to prove their advantages through public presentation of their social responsibility, and even more so in the form of additional social reporting. After all, their only controller is the state represented by the government and its ministers, as well as tax and other government bodies.
Secondly, the government itself currently lacks a federal policy in the field of CSR, including in relation to state-owned companies. No body of the federal government is involved in regulating CSR and sustainable development. For comparison: in most countries of Europe, North and South America and some Asian countries, the functions of the ministers of economics and social development include regulating CSR, incl. and in relation to state-owned companies. In the European Union, for example, policy in this area is determined by the Commissioner for Employment, Social Relations and Equal Opportunities.
A situation in which in Russia there is no policy at the governmental level in the field of CSR of public and private business cannot be considered normal. After all, consistent government policy aimed at stimulating business in the field of social and environmental projects can significantly complement the state’s efforts in priority social and not only social projects. The voluntariness of such activities on the part of business is the main guarantee of its success. Therefore, there can be no question of creating any new state bureaucratic system here. The introduction of mandatory social reporting in Russia can only destroy the emerging constructive nature of CSR, turning it into another tool of administrative pressure on business.
Related to the problem of social responsibility of the state itself is the possibility of using the implementation of national stabilization fund projects to solve the country's social problems. There have been plenty of discussions on this topic lately. At the moment, the president and the government have already decided: using the stabilization fund within the country is impossible, since it will inevitably lead to a new round of already quite high inflation. And this is, in principle, correct.
But there are other ways to use oil billions, although it is, of course, necessary to leave a good “stash” for future generations. Why, for example, cannot these funds finance a national program for the technical re-equipment of our entire health care and social security system? Why not use this money to purchase and introduce new environmentally friendly technologies at state and utility enterprises? After all, the costs of purchasing finished equipment in the country and abroad cannot cause an inflationary surge.
Or another option. Money, especially big money, must work. Investing money from the stabilization fund in foreign banks for future generations is probably partially justified because it is reliable. But only partially! Why doesn’t our government even consider the possibility of investing these funds in shares of industrial and technological leaders of world business? Why does Siemens want to buy shares of Power Machines, but the Russian government cannot use, for example, the already existing Russian Financial Corporation or create a special new organization (fund, company, trust) to invest the funds of the stabilization fund in the same Siemens or Philips, Intel, BP, Nokia, etc.? The benefit here is at least double - participation in the profits of the world's leading concerns, as well as influence on their investment policy towards Russia. It can also be very profitable to invest these funds in small high-tech venture companies and technology parks abroad for the commercial transfer of advanced technologies to Russia. Especially taking into account the possible involvement in this business activity of a large number of “former Russians” who have emigrated to the West in the last 15 years. This may turn out to be a very effective means of returning them to their “high-tech” homeland, albeit in such a unique form.
It seems that this is also a question of social responsibility of the state, or more precisely, the Russian government. If we do not now make serious adjustments to economic and investment policies, we risk falling behind the leading countries of the world technologically for a long time and very seriously and will soon turn into a raw material appendage of state-monopoly capitalism. Alexey KOSTIN, Candidate of Economic Sciences |
|
