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 resour...
| Published in: | Arctic and North |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English Russian |
| Published: |
Northern Arctic Federal University
2021
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.37482/issn2221-2698.2021.44.103 https://doaj.org/article/53326dfb13bc4564af9378829c2eb12e |
| Summary: | 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 ... |
|---|