14
CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS OF SOCIAL WORK
In order for domestic enterprises to move closer to the world standards of socially responsible
investment had much to do. It should begin with the introduction of the SRI concept and the
principles of socially responsible investing in a variety of forms, which to some extent will be
most convenient for organizations. For example:
– introduction of a special section in the annual reports, as well as developed forms of social,
environmental, industry reports and sustainability reports;
– conducting regional social forums, inviting businesses to participate in the major events
of power, as well as seminars and special events for the development of cross–sectoral social
partnership involving the main triad relationship “society–business–state”;
– development and implementation of special purpose programs and socially responsible
investment in the social, environmental, cultural and sports fields with a direct equity
participation of organizations in their funding.
It is also necessary to build a regular formal dialogue with the authorities and the public
about the principles of social responsibility business. This is to ensure that representatives of
government and civil society themselves, in turn, will formulate and determine their own share
of social responsibility.
Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation and the Center for the
development of public–private partnership with the support of the Chamber of Commerce of
the Russian Federation was carried out large–scale and scientifically based study assessing the
level of PPP development in Russian regions.
In assessing the level of public–private partnerships development in the Russian regions
following factors were taken into account:
1. Development of institutional environment (analysis of the legal framework in the field of
public–private partnerships at the regional and local levels, as well as an analysis of institutional
factors – the presence
of the authorized body, the number of experts specially trained).
2. Experience in the public–private partnership projects implementation;
3. Regional investment attractiveness.
Let us consider the level of regional public–private partnerships development in the
provision of social services in the Russian Federation (Figure 6).
95 projects in
the transport
sphere
203 projects in the
social
sphere
505 projects in the energy
sphere
482 projects in the
municipal sphere
Source: compiled by the author based on [19].
Figure 6.
Rating of Russian Regions by the Level of PPP Development
Figure 6 shows that there are only 203 projects in the social sector. It is 15,8% of the total
number of projects implemented in the framework of PPP.
The results of the rating are presented in Table 3.
15
VOLUME 2, No. 1, 2016
Table 3
Russian Regions Rating by the Level of PPP Development
Group
Regions
Regions leading
in
terms of PPP
(60,0–75,0%).
Cities: St. Petersburg, Tatarstan, Moscow.
Region: Novosibirsk region, Nizhny Novgorod region, Leningrad region.
Regions with a
high level of PPP
development
(45,0–60,0%).
Cities: Perm, Udmurtia.
Region: Samara region, Sverdlovsk region, Moscow region, Voronezh region, Bash-
kortostan Republic, The Ulyanovsk region,
Tula region, Yaroslavl region, Krasnodar
region, Tambov region, Yamalo–Nenets AO, Khanty–Mansiysk region, Rostov region,
Vladimir region, Komi Republic.
Regions with an
average level of
development of
PPP (35,0–45,0%).
Cities: Murmansk.
Region: Kaluga region, Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), Orenburg Region, Republic of
Buryatia, Republic of Chuvashia, Pskov region, Belgorod region,
Khabarovsk region,
Ryazan region, Amur region, Sakhalin region, Vologda region, Lipetsk region, Pri-
morsky region, Omsk region.
Regions with low
levels of devel-
opment of PPP
(25,0–35,0%).
Kemerovo region, Saratov region, Tver region, Tomsk region, Penza region, Irkutsk
region,
Altai region, Ivanovo region, Volgograd region, Republic of Tuva, Arkhan-
gelsk region, Republic of Khakassia, Kirov region, Kaliningrad region, Smolensk
region, Kursk region, Krasnoyarsk region , Novgorod region, Kamchatka region, Bry-
ansk region,
Astrakhan region, Chelyabinsk region, the Jewish autonomous region,
Republic of Karelia, Mordovia Republic,
Stavropol region, Kurgan region, Kostroma
region.
Regions with a
very low level of
development of
PPP (0–25,0%).
Cities: Sevastopol.
Region: Republic of Kabardino–Balkaria, Republic of Mari El, the Nenets Autono-
mous District, Republic of Dagestan,
Tyumen region, Altai Republic, Trans–Baikal
Territory, Republic of North Ossetia–Alania, Republic of Kalmykia, Republic of
Crimea, Orel region, Magadan Region, Republic of Chechnya, Chukotka Autonomous
District, Republic of Karachaevo–Cherkessia, Republic of Adygea, Republic of In-
gushetia.
Source: compiled by the author based on [19].
Stavropol region occupies only 63 place in the total rating (25,6%). Compared to the
2014 year region lost three positions in the overall ranking.
As of March 1, 2015:
– in 68 regions a law on the participation of the Russian Federation in the public–private
partnerships was adopted. In 4 regions such a law was developed and is under consideration in
the legislature;
– regulatory acts establishing procedures for working with projects of public–private
partnership are in 40 regions;
– one or more municipalities have adopted legal acts regulating
the development of
municipal–private partnership and / or implementation of MPP projects in 21 regions,
– 74 subjects received the investment memoranda, programs and strategies, that mention of
public–private partnerships as a mechanism to attract investment;
– 18 subjects have PPP development plans and / or implementation of PPP projects in the
program subject of the Russian Federation;
– 76 regions have created authorities, the functional units and / or collective bodies
responsible for the development of PPP;
– in 46 regions there are officials (two or more) which have a special qualification in project
management of PPP.
Statistics implementation of PPP projects in the social sphere is shown in Figure 7.