Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the current status and identify the main trends in leading Russian companies’ corporate sustainability model transformation in the context of achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs). Design/methodology/approach A theoretical approach is based on the interpretation of corporate sustainability model transformation within the corporate social performance (CSP) framework. The corporate sustainability model is described according to Dyllick and Muff (2016) business sustainability (BST) 1.0-3.0 spectrum. The analysis is settled on survey data collected from leading Russian companies participated in the “Report on Social Investments in Russia” project conducted by the Russian Managers Association from 2008 to 2019. Findings This paper finds that the BST 2.0 is becoming a dominant model based on the “creating shared value” goal. The related CSP is characterized by their orientation to the principles of the UN Global Compact; by the emergence of a coordinating role for specialized departments of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and/or sustainability; and by the regular sustainability reporting. The SDGs are generally correlated with responsible business practices that are already in existence in companies. The emerging trend towards the advanced BST 3.0 model including the SDGs integration into the main business processes is constrained by the lack of active cooperation between companies. Research limitations/implications The research sample includes only large Russian companies with a significant industry diversity, participating in the “Report on Social Investments in Russia” project, thereby restricting the analysis of non-participants. The relatively low repetition of participants in this long-term project does also restrict the degree of generalization. Future research could be based on the findings of this paper to create and test hypotheses via a nationwide study of Russian businesses as well as cross-national comparative studies. Practical implications The analysis of the corporate sustainability model transformation through studying the key CSP framework elements could support Russian companies in creating systemic changes of their principles, processes and outcomes measurements in the context of achieving the UN SDGs. Originality/value This study contributes to existing literature by combining the corporate sustainability model transformation analysis with the CSP framework. It describes the experience of large Russian companies that publicly position themselves as national leaders in the field of CSR and sustainable development.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to build a typology of social entrepreneurship in Russian Federation and describe the related models based on a deep understanding of the current institutional context and the positioning of social entrepreneurship in the arena of market and non-market activities. Design/methodology/approach This paper is based on secondary data sources including legal documents, annual reports and websites of the social entrepreneurship-related organizations. Findings This paper finds that social entrepreneurship in Russia is located between civil society, the State and the market and it is the State that became a main driving force behind social entrepreneurship development. Originality/value This paper is the first to perceive the social entrepreneurship in modern Russia as a phenomenon with “semi-official” status. The original models and the very typology of social entrepreneurship are based on the newly introduced concept of “social-entrepreneurial mission”.

Purpose -The aim of this paper is to examine how companies officially recognized in Russia as corporate philanthropy leaders actually introduce, implement, and evaluate philanthropic activities. Focusing on the connections between these activities and corporate strategy, the paper seeks to investigate the main trends in corporate philanthropy development over the period 2007-2010, assuming that corporate philanthropy is an integral part of corporate social performance.Design/methodology/approach -A theoretical framework is based on the recognition of ''strategic'' philanthropy as a part as well as the main trend in current philanthropic activities of leading companies. The analysis as such is settled on survey data collected from participants in the national ''Corporate Philanthropy Leaders'' award competition conducted by the Russian business newspaper Vedomosti, PwC, and the non-profit grant-making organization ''Donors Forum'' from 2008 to 2011. Findings -The results testify to strengthening connections between corporate philanthropy and corporate strategy, enhancing the strategic nature of philanthropy as such. Here the responding companies significantly diversified the directions of their philanthropic activities, whereas the distribution of corporate philanthropy by form showed a high stability that was practically unaffected by the economic crisis of 2008-2009. A common practice is the professionalization of managing corporate philanthropy, with a growing role for CSR departments.Research limitations/implications -The study focuses on the activities of leading Russian companies participating in the national ''Corporate Philanthropy Leaders'' award competition, thereby restricting the analysis of non-participants. Moreover, the evolution of competition surveys and their methodology as well as relatively low repetition of participants also restrict the degree of generalization. Future research could be based on the findings of this study to create hypotheses to be tested on a broader sample of Russian companies.Originality/value -The majority of studies of corporate philanthropy in Russia are still covering the necessity of corporate philanthropy for resolving societal problems and describing particular ''best practice'' cases rather than analyzing the relation of corporate philanthropy to the whole system of CSP and its strategic applications. This study aims to address this gap by focusing on corporate philanthropy leaders as a first step to broad nationwide research.

No abstract

Информация о статье Дата поступления-09 марта 2017 г. Дата принятия в печать-20 апреля 2017 г. Дата онлайн-размещения-20 июня 2017 г. Ключевые слова Муниципальная реформа, институт территориальной организации местного самоуправления, институт организационных основ местного самоуправления, институт компетенционных основ местного самоуправления, городской округ с внутригородским делением, внутригородской район, единство городского хозяйства, перераспределение полномочий, Конституция Российской Федерации, Европейская хартия местного самоуправления Статья посвящена анализу муниципальной реформы 2014-2016 гг. В состоянии реформирования находятся институты территориальной организации, организационных и компетенционных основ местного самоуправления. Были законодательно введены два новых вида муниципальных образований-городские округа с внутригородским делением и внутригородские районы. В науке муниципального права сформировались две точки зрения относительно допустимости и целесообразности разделения городского округа на внутригородские районы. Согласно первой, разделение крупных городских округов на внутригородские районы допустимо и целесообразно. Согласно второй, подобное разделение недопустимо и нецелесообразно. Автор придерживается второй точки зрения. Муниципально-правовая политика в сфере организационных основ местного самоуправления направлена на максимальное ограничение прямых выборов населением органов местного самоуправления, что приводит к его дальнейшему отчуждению от местной власти (прямые выборы сохранены всего в 11 городских округах (13 %), являющихся административными центрами соответствующих субъектов Российской Федерации). Федеральным законом № 136-ФЗ в законодательство о местном самоуправлении введен совершенно новый институт-перераспределение полномочий. В соответствии с ч. 1.2 ст. 17 Федерального закона № 131-ФЗ законами субъекта Российской Федерации может осуществляться перераспределение полномочий между органами местного самоуправления и органами государственной власти субъекта РФ. В нормах Конституции РФ отсутствует указание на возможность передачи органам государственной власти полномочий органов местного самоуправления по решению вопросов местного значения.