Arctic Corporations and Development Risks: Challenge and Response

The realities of the Russian Arctic in recent decades make it possible to determine a special phenomenon of corporate development risks, which can be structured into resource, institutional and ecosystem risks. The resource risk reflects the contradiction between the conjuncture of the global resource markets and the specific conditions for the development of unique deposits located in the Arctic zone; institutional risk — between federal norms and rules for the development of natural resource deposits and local specific conditions for the construction and operation of resource facilities in the Arctic; ecosystem risk reflects the contradiction between large-scale economic activity and the fragility of Arctic natural systems. As a result of a comparative assessment of the development risks of three Arctic corporations in Russia, it was found that the highest risk is typical for the facilities of Norilsk Nickel, the lowest — for NovaTEK, and Gaz-promneft is in the middle. Using the OLI paradigm of John Dunning, it can be argued that Arctic corpora-tions respond to the challenge of development risks by adapting their spatial, institutional and organiza-tional structure to the conditions for the development of resources and resource territories. The spatial factor is most efficiently used by Norilsk Nickel, then NovaTEK, in the strategy of adaptation to develop-ment risks, with the receipt of benefits from localization and the creation of a regional cluster, while Gaz-promneft is the least effective. The institutional factor is most effectively used by NovaTEK and Gazprom-neft, and the least by Norilsk Nickel. The organizational and structural factor as a tool for adapting to risks is most skillfully used by Gazpromneft, weaker — by NovaTEK and Norilsk Nickel. Integrally, the best positions in the strategy of adaptation to development risks are held by Gazpromneft, and the worst positions by Norilsk Nickel, which has the most significant contrast between the size of development risks and the means of adaptation to them. Strengthening the internal competencies of the company and its corporate innovation system is the most important way to successfully cope with the high risks of corporate development of resources and spaces of the Arctic.

UNIVERSITY MARKETING IN AN AGE OF DIGITAL GLOBALIZATION

Digital globalization is regarded as the environment for the functioning of the 21st century’s university. Problems of digitalization of industries, globalization of markets, growing instability and uncertainty of the environment, increased social inequality, networking, platformization of business models predetermine the importance of university marketing as management focused on global resource markets. The trends in the development of holistic marketing in the era of digital globalization are presented – digitalization and globalization of operations, individualization and democratization of solutions, artificial intellectualization, networking, platformization of activity, co-creation of value with consumers and stakeholders, the growing importance of consumer experience. The guidelines for the development of university marketing in line with digital transformation at the internal and external levels of university management have been proposed: the transition from university rankings to the ranking of people (employees and university students) as a response to the trends of individualization, personalization and networking, the emphasis on intra-university marketing in comparison with external one, the strengthening of intellectual knowledge-valuable promotional tools in comparison with advertising. New guidelines for transformation of management and marketing of the university were defined.

An analysis of EU FDI inflow into Russia

This paper analyzes the trends and drivers of inward foreign direct investment in Russia between 2009 and 2019. The EU is the premier provider of FDI into Russia, even though we find that reported values overstate its role given the use of Special Purpose Entities (SPEs). Key drivers of Russian FDI flows are the price of oil and natural resource markets, macroeconomic volatility, monetary policy, sanctions and trade impediments. As FDI is highly concentrated in natural resource rich regions, we argue that a sectoral decomposition understates the importance of fossil fuel extraction. Based on this analysis as well as the literature on growth effects of FDI, we argue that Russia needs more investment into higher-value added activities.