Search results

The aim of this study is to explore the current situation in the Russian construction industry and the obstacles, drivers and strategies that affect innovation implementation most significantly. The Russian construction industry is highly conservative and is often criticised for its lack of innovation. Construction firms invest relatively little in innovation adoption, development of new ideas and formal research and development.

This study utilised an extensive literature review followed by a questionnaire survey incorporating some post hoc interviews with 52 experts from the Russian architecture, engineering and construction industry to identify the most significant drivers, enablers, barriers and strategies related to innovation diffusion in construction.

Findings indicated that economic and financial difficulties, as well as inappropriate legislation, are the most significant barriers to innovation. Financial incentives, legislative improvements and the promotion of alternative construction procurement methods were viewed as the most critical strategies to improve the current lacklustre rate of innovation diffusion.

While there is anecdotal evidence that the Russian construction industry is lagging in terms of technological advancement, its closed nature means that there is still little reported evidence on what are the main barriers to innovation diffusion in this country. Hence, there is a lack of focus on innovation diffusion rates in different construction sectors, such as building and civil infrastructure and limited consideration on how effectively the research and development sector contributes to innovation.

To analyze internationalization patterns among large Russian multinational corporations (MNCs).

Case study analysis of systematic internationalization attempts within three industries: IT, banking, and steel. For case studies, secondary data was used along with industry expert interviews.

The first finding is that Russian firms actively pursuing internationalization strategies through mergers and acquisitions (M&As) and greenfield investments were not as successful as several optimistic assessments had earlier suggested. Few global corporate champions emerged among Russian MNCs, despite a decade of record high outward foreign direct investments (OFDI). Secondly, we observed the unique trend of splitting operations between international and Russian businesses, which proved more sustainable than operating as a single firm. For example, the IBS-Luxoft group achieved success through gradual legal and organizational separation of branches in order to serve rising demand in developed markets and from its Russian business within the same industry. This double-headed strategy divides a business into two parts that are controlled by the same owners, but operate independently: one firm operates within the home market, while another firm aims to expand globally. This seems to be a typical trend, confirming recent findings for Russian small and medium enterprise (SME) internationalization and reinforcing earlier literature on institutional constraints in the Russian economy.

We analyzed major cases from three actively internationalizing industries. For each industry, we extensively analyzed one main case in particular. Industries’ choice also affects specific internationalization strategies.

This study identifies two distinct approaches in the literature on Russian business internationalization and attempts to combine both. We will also highlight organizational dilemmas as well as patterns in Russian businesses’ successful and failed internationalization strategies over the last decade. We identified an original double-headed internationalization strategy consisting of the separation of the national and global businesses, rather than leveraging their synergy. We will also question the established optimistic assessment of Russian MNC internationalization.

The chapter is devoted to the analysis of industrial development in Russia since 2005. Characteristic features of the Russian industry are considered. It is shown that the Russian industry is specific both by its structure and its high heterogeneity. The mining and quarrying sector and related manufacturing industries play a significant role in the Russian economy and major role in industrial production. In the foreseeable future, these sectors can strengthen their leading positions.

Considerable attention is paid to the analysis of the industrial policy of the Russian government, which has traditionally been one of the leading actors of industrial development. The main directions of industrial policy are singled out: compensation of negative changes, catching-up, and advance development. It is noted that the role of the government is ambivalent: on the one hand, it seeks to develop high-performing companies, including new and fast-growing ones, and on the other hand, it often supports large, low-performing enterprises. With the declared continuous emphasis of industrial policy on innovation and modernization, low innovativeness of Russian companies remains. Based on the analysis of modern conditions, as well as new objects and instruments of industrial policy, some prospects for future industrial development have been revealed.

Foresight is frequently used to establish science and technology investment priorities and develop corresponding technology and innovation support programmes. In the light of technology and innovation policy, many individual Foresight studies are undertaken which are separate and little linked with the broader policy scope and ambition. This paper aims to look at an approach towards a consistent Foresight system which is linked closely to science, technology and innovation policy.

The paper provides an in-depth case study of the Russian Foresight system. The case study is based on desk research and extensive experience of the authors with the system.

Russia has developed a systematic approach towards organising Foresight which involves and serves multiple stakeholders, including government, ministries, federal and regional agencies, higher education institutions, public research institutes, state-owned companies and private businesses and a large range of associations. Under the auspicious of a dedicated commission, targeted Foresight is undertaken with clearly defined scope for each. The paper finds that the Russian system is unique in its organisational structure and in the integration of Foresight with science, technology and innovation policy measures.

The paper describes all facets of the Russian Foresight system which has not been done before. It also outlines the practical steps to further develop and leverage the system.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a better understanding of how the government influences the internationalization of emerging MNEs and, more specifically, answer the questions how and to what extent does the combination of the home country government’s control and interest influence Russian MNEs.

First, the author examined sector-specific factors and institutional forces that affect the development of the Russian economy’s industries. Second, the author has classified the sectors included in this study into four groups according to the following two main criteria: the interest of the government in the development of the sector, and the degree of state control for the firms in the sector. Third, the author has analyzed the forms and types of the government participation in firms’ internationalization in defined groups based on the observation of industries’ legislative acts and state decrees and orders. After that, the author has verified the existence of certain similarities of strategies under the governmental influence, and finally discussed the extent of the control and interest implied by the government toward these firms.

After analyzing the patterns of the state involvement in firms’ internationalization in various groups the author found that some of the groups are characterized by similar types of government role and their responses are, also, sometimes similar. The author presents a more detailed look at the above results in Table III, and explain the two-sided role of the government in different groups of firms.

While the literature emphasizes that institutional forces shape the internationalization of emerging multinational enterprises, they have not been comprehensively linked to explaining the contradictory role of the government in this process. The author addresses this gap by examining an integrated influence that home government factors (namely, control and interest) exert in enabling firms to compete abroad. In addition, the author contributes to the knowledge about the behavior of Russian firms, which is one of the less researched areas in the field of international management.

The paper also has value for companies’ strategists as it provides them with understanding of the complexity of government-related determinants influencing the internationalization process of their firms and the types of firms’ abilities to be developed or supported. It also provides a practical tool for modeling their international strategy formation and accounting for different types of state influences on internationalization of EM firms.

This paper highlights the government-related aspects of the internationalization of Russian MNEs. Even when they go abroad with strong product capabilities and a proactive managerial style, they still benefit from home country institutional resources. The author sees the strength of the empirical findings in further extension of the understanding of origins, consequences and prospects of internationalization of emerging market firms with the home government involvement.

At the same time, new military and political factors have emerged, which determine the strategy of the Russian defense industry, rates of its development, and change of the structure. On February 8, of the current year, the chief of Pentagon, R. Gates spoke at a session of the Committee for the Armed Forces of the Chamber of Representatives of the Congress, declaring that USA should be ready to possible military conflicts with other countries including Russia and China: “We need the whole spectrum of war facilities for army involving conflicts, since we do not know what could happen in such places as Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and other.”¹ As a result, the USA military policy is encircling Russia with antimissile defense systems. They are supposed to install a powerful radar in the Czech Republic and shaft-basing missiles in Poland. A superpowerful floating radar is to be transferred from Hawaii islands to Aleut islands, etc. Thus, the whole territory of Russia will be surrounded with radar-missile complexes. These activities will produce an increased attention to elaboration and manufacturing of constituents of the antimissile defense system and by-pass systems, possible withdrawal from the Treaty on conventional weapons in Europe and the Treaty on medium-range strategic missiles etc., which may change the direction and paces of development of the defense industry.

The present study focuses on the timeliness of financial reporting, which is an element of transparency. Specifically, it looks at the telecommunications industry in Russia and computes the number of days it takes companies to receive an audit opinion, then compares the time lag to the number of days it takes non-Russian companies in the telecommunications industry to receive an audit opinion. The study concludes that Russian companies take longer to report financial results than do non-Russian companies. Larger Russian companies take less time to report their financial condition than do small Russian firms, but the difference is not significant. The same was true for the non-Russian companies included in the sample. Companies using Russian Accounting Standards took significantly less time to report financial results than did companies using either International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) or US generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Companies using IFRS took significantly longer to report financial results than did companies using US GAAP. The dominant auditor in the Russian telecommunications industry did not complete audits in significantly less time than did nondominant auditors. Although Russian companies take far less time to issue financial statements now than they did a few years ago, it is premature to definitively conclude that the improvement is significant due to the limited data set.

The chapter is devoted to considering the aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic influence on the global and Russian electronics industry. The work aims to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the electronic industry in the world and Russia from various angles. As a result of the study, the main features of the global electronic industry are highlighted, including leadership of Western European countries, Japan and the United States in the segment of high price electronics; the leadership of the new industrial countries in a lower price segment; active development of microelectronics as an electronics industry segment and its colossal role in the economy of modern countries; the trend towards acquisitions of small companies by large corporations and other industry. Key problems of the Russian electronics are identified, including a small fraction of the global electronics dependence of Russian industry on imported electronic components, a huge backlog of electronic industry of Russia in comparison of world leaders and the newly industrialized countries, technological backwardness of many enterprises of electronic industry, the low level of qualification as a whole industry. The novelty of the research is highlighting the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the electronics industry. The study highlights both negative consequences (decline in production of many electronic enterprises, disruption of supply chains, insufficient financing of the industry) and positive aspects (active growth of the segment of household appliances and electronics), as well as an impetus to the development of new directions of world electronics (radio-photonics, optoelectronic and quantum technologies, artificial intelligence, laser technology).

The chapter aims to determine the need to form a new industrial core of the Russian industry, its content, problems, prospects and the objective prerequisites of its formation in modern conditions.

The development of prerequisites for the formation of a new industrial core of the Russian industry relies on the possibilities of the system paradigm, the theory of socio-economic transformation, the theory of technological modes, the theory of reproduction, the theory of modernization, the method of dialectics, empirical method and the method of analysis and synthesis.

The authors determine that the formation of a qualitatively new industrial core of the Russian industry corresponding to the new technological mode will ensure the integration of the Russian economy in the accelerating technological and socio-economic transformations.

The authors substantiate the demand for the formation of a new industrial core of the Russian industry. The problems associated with the destruction of the former industrial base during the economic transformation are established. Additionally, the authors determine the prospects for the formation of a new industrial core of the Russian industry on a qualitatively new technological basis.