It’s been quite long since the West started using the term “business diplomacy”. However, the literature on business diplomacy is still lacking the scope of empirical research, which makes the definition of this term too loose, without clear common boundaries. This collocation covers both the building of stable and long-term relations between government bodies and the management of international and foreign companies, as well as state foreign economic activity aimed at supporting its business abroad. In Russian discourse, the term does not fall within the category of the firmly established and generally accepted, and the terminology used does not always coincide with that in the West.
The term or rather the collocation “business diplomacy” is by no means a rare occurrence in modern Russian political discourse. But it appears to have different meanings. Even the authors of the section failed to reach an agreement on how it should be interpreted. But what they do agree on is that the phenomenon of “business diplomacy” undoubtedly exists, there are structures and institutions, including Russian, playing certain roles in business diplomacy, we see entities operating, we can trace the dynamics of their interaction and, also, in longer term, the evolution of the phenomenon. Business diplomacy is rooted in the creation and maintenance of mutually beneficial relations at the level of people-to-people diplomacy.
Defining People-to-People and Business Diplomacy
According to Cull (2010), there are seven lessons from the past that are important to understand and take into account for the future of public diplomacy. These lessons are: public diplomacy must begin with listening; there must be a connection to policy; public diplomacy is not for a domestic audience; to be effective requires credibility, which has implications for the bureaucratic structures around public diplomacy activity; the most credible voice in public diplomacy is not necessarily one’s own; it is not “always about you”; public diplomacy as an activity is everyone’s business (2010, p. 11). These observations and lessons imply a certain shift in the approach to engaging in public diplomacy, which should be more focused, relevant, engaging, credible and widespread. This is where track II diplomacy (citizen diplomacy) is critical in forming collaborations and partnerships, progressing beyond the monologue and dialogue stages. Cowan and Arsenault (2008, p. 27) note that “in this world of economic, political and cultural interdependence, monologue, dialogue, and collaboration, when appropriately practiced, are all essential tools for effective public diplomacy, both online and offline”. All of the above leads to the observation that an advantage of grassroots, people-to-people public diplomacy programmes is that they tend to be more credible and directed towards a more clearly defined and engaged audience. The challenge, however, is to secure reliable funding for their activities (Payne, 2009, p. 604). There is a need to now link people-to-people diplomacy to the understanding and the practice of business diplomacy.
Business diplomacy is understood as the situation when a business takes the lead (as opposed to government-led) as the diplomatic actor that act to seek and secure profit-making and the further survival of the enterprise. The practice of business diplomacy offers an approach to geopolitical and non-commercial risk management based upon diplomatic acts of communication (Kesteleyn, Riordan, & Ruel, 2014, p. 304). In practice, business diplomacy is said to occur when a company’s commercial interests align with a government’s national interests in order to influence or persuade a foreign government and/or business to attain common goals (Saner & Yiu, 2003, pp. 14–15; Small, 2014, p. 377). The practice of business diplomacy requires all of the elements outlined as being necessary to be present in people-to-people diplomacy, such as the seven historical lessons formulated by Cull, in order to not only meet the definitional standards, it also impacts upon the chances of success. The following section lays out how the concept and practice of business diplomacy is viewed from a Russian perspective.
Russian Understanding of Business Diplomacy
To illustrate the emerged pseudo-pluralism of opinions, let’s take a look at some of the examples of how the word combination “business diplomacy” is being used. Speaking at the rally of the Association of Entrepreneurs of “Delovaya Rossiya (Business Russia)” in October 2016, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin said that “Communications between business communities play an important role in expanding Russian cooperation with other countries”. The President thanked “Business Russia” for the development of international economic cooperation, considering this process “business diplomacy”. He further explained that patriotism and the implementation of state interests through the interests of commercial structures are the qualitative characteristics of this phenomenon. Here, we can see business diplomacy being understood as a tool for achieving diplomatic results not through diplomatic means, but through the execution of commercial agreements. Similar, in essence, interpretation of “business diplomacy” is provided by those Western experts who believe that large Russian companies, such as Gazprom, Rosneft and some others, are not just commercial enterprises, but the tools of state policy which Russian official authorities use to exert direct pressure on foreign governments. Sometimes, this is roughly called “energy blackmail”.
A somewhat different meaning is attached to “business diplomacy” by Russian businessmen. Thus, the editorial written by Alexander Polyansky, editor-in-chief of BOSS, the Russian business magazine, and dedicated to the issue of Russia’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), points out that business would be interested in the government making certain concessions to the WTO and some countries, first of all in Western Europe, which demanded a reduction in energy tariffs for Russia to join the organization.1 This case shows difference in attitudes by business and government to expedient decision-making on international issues, where business is proving more effective compared to government, and mechanisms for their implementation, where business is dependent on government bodies. At the same time, it confirms the common viewpoint that, generally, the interests of the state and business (at least, the big business represented in Russia by the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP)) coincide.2 Therefore, both business and the state are pursuing a common policy, which is “business diplomacy”.
Quite different is the common perception of “business diplomacy” collocation within business circles at different levels. In prevalence is the perception that business diplomacy is the ability of businessmen to “come to terms” with government bodies both within their home countries and abroad where companies have business interests.3
Russian Business Diplomacy in Practice
In our opinion, business diplomacy is the activity of non-governmental commercial structures and their representatives in the form of non-governmental associations and partnerships, which is aimed at promoting their interests outside the state of origin, involving them in international relations as active players (subjects). This can take shape of self-promotion of own interests in third countries or through public-private cooperation.
Impressive, though not always positive, illustrations of business diplomacy in a historical retrospective can be provided by East India and West India companies during the period when they were not official state institutions. These companies, implementing their private and/or corporate initiatives, entered into relations with state institutions of other countries without any support from foreign policy institutions of their countries, and sometimes violating the principles and rules of interaction that were built between the countries at the diplomatic level. Moreover, the business diplomacy of that time itself had to a certain degree shaped the contemporary system of international relations and laid down the principles according to which public and non-public diplomacy was built and was functioning.
The modern conditions undoubtedly make business diplomacy different from that of the colonial period. However, there is no denying the very fact of its existence. One of the most important factors that dominate modern international relations is globalization. However, globalization itself is by no means the result of the development of political systems and relations. It emerged as the result of scientific and technological progress and the development of the system of international economic relations in general and the international division of labour in particular. The most vivid example of the existence of business diplomacy today is the emergence and vigorous activity of transnational corporations (TNCs), and their assumption of active roles as players in international relations. Frequently, TNCs, when pursuing their own interests, act as agents of state interests, but, on the other hand, it is by no means rare for corporations to take steps that contradict the official policy established by the authorities of their countries of origin. Moreover, we can often see how TNCs put own interests not only above those of their nations but also without regard to the position of international organizations and regulatory institutions. In this case, the origin of the company has no significance: American as well as European, Asian and Russian corporations pursue policies of their own. Perhaps, a certain exception from that rule are the companies from the People’s Republic of China, although in the medium term they will probably choose to separate own interests from those of official Beijing.
Much has been written about how compelling can be the influence of TNCs on the policies of certain countries. There is no need to elaborate on this. More import is the mechanisms they use, such as recruitment of high-ranking former officials. For example, on 29 September 2017, the extraordinary general meeting of shareholders of NK Rosneft, PJSC in St. Petersburg unanimously elected former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder as the chairman of the board of directors of NK Rosneft.
There is even a possibility of such a metamorphosis when, starting from promoting the national interests, management and/or owners of a company can gradually become agents of foreign interests within own countries. An example of the above is the following. Nikolaus Wilhelm Knauf, heading an originally German company, Knauf, which has become international today (one of the world’s largest producers of building materials, etc.) is the Honorary Consul of the Russian Federation in Nuremberg. He is an active supporter of attracting foreign, primarily German, investments in the Russian economy. Incidentally, the institute of honorary consuls itself—engaged in an outside capacity, but considered official representatives—existed in the USSR until 1925 and again “emerged” in the Soviet Union in 1988.4
The ability to influence the policies of foreign states through the institute of advisors to high-ranking officials can be illustrated by the example of James Giffen—the head of the American company Mercator—who actively lobbied the interests of the American oil companies Mobil, Texaco, Phillips Petroleum and so on, while an advisor to the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Abishevich Nazarbayev.5 In this case, however, we see a violation of laws of the company country of origin—tax evasion, which does not remove the issue of business diplomacy in different forms from the agenda.
Let us examine the options for public-private cooperation, primarily the cases of business diplomacy in the countries of Southeast Asia. Within the framework of public diplomacy in the global economy, a special place is occupied by business diplomacy, which uses various negotiating tools combined with commercial and diplomatic experience. One of the pillars of this kind of diplomacy is public-private cooperation. The term of public-private partnership is too narrow to span the diversity of relations between state and business because it implies limited period of contractual relations. The context of business diplomacy assumes public-private cooperation—that is, any kind of productive relationship between companies and government structures.
In Southeast Asia, the state traditionally plays a special role. Here, it exerts much more influence to regulate the national economy than in the West. In the context of public authorities getting increasingly involved in business affairs, it is extremely important to reckon with regulatory bodies, develop routine interaction with them and acquaint themselves with the local system of checks and balances, with formal and informal rules for doing business.
Proper interaction with state is of special importance to foreign business, which brings business diplomacy to the forefront, which can be considered in terms of public-private cooperation. When entering the markets of Southeast Asia, any enterprise, group of companies or business association in order to be successful in its overseas undertakings must thoroughly investigate, even meticulously analyse, the existing national and regional ecosystem of governmental ministries, departments, agencies and other organizations. Also developing own strategy that will determine a set of practical measures and steps in implementing corporate “foreign policy” and positioning the company in public space of the country of entry will lead to success.
Foreign public-private cooperation for any company should be carried out simultaneously on two vectors—on the one hand, seeking to reduce the risks of communication with regulatory and supervisory bodies according to the principle “do no harm” and “prevent problems in advance” and, on the other hand, getting more benefits from communication with development institutions and sectoral ministries.
In the first instance, the whole variety of business diplomacy tools needs to be employed—communicating with authorities directly influencing the activities of foreign business in a country and analysing the legal environment—primarily government regulations, which act as certain official guidelines. The principle “When in Rome …” applies to the issue of doing business in any country, but in Southeast Asia, it is all the more valid due to national, religious and mental specifics of the population. Each state in this region is peculiar in its own way to such an extent that, for example, to resolve similar disputes in business, states may use different, sometimes totally opposite, approaches and laws. To prevent the negative impact of local specifics, a constructive dialogue with all regulators and policymakers should be established. Major roles in the process are to be played by such departments of a commercial organization as “compliance” and “government relations”, which should act hand in hand with the “international business development” department.
This region is of particular interest to the Russian business. Not only because the sanctions-oppressed economy makes many companies look more closely at Asian markets but also because Russian technologies and services are more in demand in the markets of Southeast Asia than in Western countries. After a period of decline in export-import operations in 2014–2016, 2017 brought the sales turnover between Russia and this region up to some US$16.8 billion (the fifth macro-region in terms of foreign economic activity and the first in terms of growth rates), a quadruple annual rise, thus making it strategically important for all Russian business diplomacy. It should be noted that the increase in turnover does not have direct correlation with the so-called Eastward turn of Russian policy, although it undoubtedly finds political support in connection with the emerging line of the foreign policy.
Turnover between ASEAN and EAEU, million USD
Country | Year | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | ||
ASEAN | Armenia | 14.7 | 43.8 | 11.8 | 11.8 | 27.5 |
Belarus | 507.3 | 728 | 632.5 | 391.7 | 445.2 | |
Kazakhstan | 415.4 | 440 | 331.5 | 338.7 | 578.9 | |
Kyrgyzstan | 16 | 16.2 | 9.5 | 6.7 | 6.6 | |
Russia | 19,984 | 22,571.1 | 13,969 | 4782.1 | 16,788.5 | |
EAEU | 20,937.4 | 23,799.1 | 14,954.3 | 5531 | 17,846.7 | |
The importance of Southeast Asia for Russia is explained by the growing middle class in the region of 630 million population, followed by an increase in consumption and other factors. Firstly, the ASEAN countries differ greatly in the levels of development of industries, agriculture and services. Therefore, Russian companies can find partners (both suppliers and consumers) regardless of technological level of own production—price is much more important here. Secondly, new transportation routes, including the north-south direction, make it possible to expect a reduction in the logistic costs of the final product, often an important component of total costs. Moreover, transport infrastructure can integrate the Northern Sea Route, which is why it is no coincidence that Singapore has become an observer state in the Arctic Council. Finally, mutual interest in the development of advanced technologies. Russian technologies are in demand in the countries of the region, and Singaporean and Malaysian technologies—in Russia.
The possible establishment of a free trade zone (FTA) with ASEAN not only paves the way for EAEU members to new markets, sources of investment and investment opportunities but also provides a chance to integrate their national industries and individual production into international production chains that appear and function with the participation of ASEAN members, as well as for the technological modernization of the economies of the participating countries (Aliev et al., 2017, p. 8).
In the second case, we are talking about the well-planned routine work of a company to obtain various types of state support, which are available in abundance in most countries, in some cases compiled into a coherent system, while in other countries seeming more like a disorderly pile of instruments and preferences. There are conflicting examples of how national development institutions function in Southeast Asia. For example, in Singapore, the state system of business support, including foreign, has been built due to the economic prerequisites formed over decades of active economic growth. Here, we can observe a full-fledged ecosystem of state institutions—from state-run funds to business development agencies. And everything they do is aimed at attracting high-quality sustainable business. Public-private cooperation has been simplified as much as possible here, through the effective system created in the country, and provides multiplication effect as long as businesses collaborate systematically with local development institutions.
Another case in point is presented by such countries as Cambodia and the Philippines, countries known for their relative political stability, but not included in the Asian top ratings, regarding ease and safety of doing business. In these countries, the work of development institutions and the use of measures to support foreign business are often not facilitated, but rather go against the tide. To counterbalance unfavourable economic conditions, the state invades the economic sphere in order to mitigate market disruptions and shortcomings, and smoothen the rough edges of the economic system.
In this case, subjects of business diplomacy need to draw on the example of public diplomacy in adverse or unfavourably disposed countries. This, first of all, implies the need to manage risks and probabilities, since even the state in this case cannot always guarantee success or help avoid negative factors. In such a case, to take advantage of public-private cooperation, a foreign company should keep public policymakers involved all along and routinely assess risks to adjust activities at every step of the way. It is also important to be ready to quickly withdraw the business from a country if something goes wrong.
In Russia, it is possible to identify structures and platforms that organize and coordinate the interaction between business and the state at the international level. Speaking about the latter, we should certainly mention the two largest international economic forums—that of St. Petersburg and the Eastern forum (held in Vladivostok), where representatives of business and political elite are brought together from all over the world. Also, there are a number of region-wide forums that are also of interest for foreign partners—those are Innoprom in Yekaterinburg, the Siberian Economic Forum in Novosibirsk and the Krasnoyarsk Economic Forum. All those platforms see regular participation of companies from Southeast Asia as well as leading politicians from this part of the world.
There are also structures that facilitate international cooperation and interaction with the state authorities of the Russian Federation, as well as with the authorities of other countries. Some sort of specific architecture has in fact been shaped, even a hierarchy, which influences the way of how companies behave in a particular region of the world, their informal stance on various issues as well as support measures. At the top of the taxonomic level, the following institutes can be identified as such—the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation (RF CCI) and the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs. These are the structures that to a certain extent compete with each other, with their relations often being regulated at the informal level by government employees and heads of large state corporations. Also of importance are personalities of their leaders, both former and active ones. Thus, for a long time, RF CCI was headed by the former Russian Prime Minister, famous diplomat—Yevgeny Maksimovich Primakov. And it was with him that the regional network was formed inside and outside the country, which only underwent later transformations. The head of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs is now the former minister Alexander Nikolayevich Shokhin—the former deputy chairman of the country’s government, one of the people behind the establishment of the socio-economic system that currently functions in the country. Moreover, he is on the board of the ruling United Russia party.
There are also industry associations of employers and manufacturers and so on. The most active business association is Delovaya Rossiya (Business Russia), uniting together over 3000 entrepreneurs working in the non-primary sector of the economy. Business Russia is actively promoting the interests of business community and interacting with the authorities, including through specialized business events of their own or organized jointly with other associations and government organizations of different countries. Business platforms and events are used not only as a tool for solving local issues but also as a serious tool to build a national branding in the global economic arena—this has already become a prerequisite for creating favourable conditions for the activities of Russian companies abroad.7
Standing alone is the Agency for Strategic Initiatives (ASI)—a non-governmental organization exercising real influence on who is admitted to become a member of the government, governor appointments and on introduction and development of priority national projects. ASI’s weight in international affairs is somewhat less compared to domestic, but also significant.
The sphere of assisting Russian companies in their expansion to foreign markets is represented by such institutions as the Russian Export Centre, which has now been transferred under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation, the Russian Industrial Fund, which is also the creation of the above Ministry, the Russian Direct Investment Fund and Vnesheconombank, as well as others. They are also to be attributed to higher-level structures, but this time, in fact, state owned.
Middle level is represented by regional chambers of commerce, regional and interregional associations, development and investment attracting agencies and so on. Usually, they provide the infrastructure for interaction between business and provincial administration, border areas as well as foreign partners (often prioritizing certain countries and regions).
Finally, the bottom level, in fact, the most useful working tool to maintain actual relations, consists of small CCIs (representing different towns), the structures of sister cities and other very diverse, often one-of-the-kind structures and institutions. In our opinion, this level also includes such an institution as business councils that exist in many countries, either linked to business and industry and other associations or even acting independently.
Business councils and similar business associations offering a set of tools and measures to support businesses from other countries, helping them to adapt to local conditions, now play an increasingly important role and occupy an important place in public-private cooperation in some countries of Southeast Asia. Business councils are not just an important tool for public-private cooperation involving third parties but also the structures that can hedge against the lack of information about local markets, poor communication with government bodies and conflict situations occurring in the process of public-private cooperation.
The Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation (RF CCI) is a non-governmental non-profit (NP) organization that brings together business representatives to achieve the goals and objectives as defined by the Law of the Russian Federation “On Chambers of Commerce and Industry in the Russian Federation” and the Charter of the Chamber on the basis of membership. The RF CCI represents the interests of small, medium and large enterprises. A total of 75% of the RF CCI membership base is small and medium enterprises SME’s.
Currently, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation represents more than 52,000 organizations and over 300 associations of businessmen and commercial organizations at the federal level, as well as in excess of 500 business associations at the regional level. In the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, there are over 180 chambers of commerce and industry.
promotion of the export of Russian goods and services;
promotion of a positive image of Russian manufacturers;
building relations with business circles of foreign countries and international business organizations; and
assistance in attracting investments, introduction of innovations and advanced domestic technologies.
Thus, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation, in general, is called upon to work towards creation of a positive image of Russian manufacturers, and, therefore, of the country as a whole. Currently, the RF CCI has over 30 representative offices. In addition, the Chamber has 74 business councils for cooperation with other countries. Their work is aimed at developing mutually beneficial cooperation between Russian and foreign businessmen. Most business councils work to develop cooperation with a particular country, although there are business councils of BRICS (on cooperation with Brazil, India, China and South Africa), the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization), the Eurasian Council (on cooperation with Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan) and ASEAN, which seek to develop relations with inter-country associations.
CIS and the former Soviet Union—10,
Europe—16,
Far and Middle East and Africa—24,
Asia—18,
America—6.
So, not every country has a dedicated business council. In particular, there are councils for cooperation with Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam and Singapore; recently the Russia-Philippines Business Council resumed its work, but there are no business councils for cooperation with such ASEAN countries like Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar and Brunei Darussalam, as well as two countries with ASEAN observer status. The presence of a single business council for cooperation with ASEAN countries does not make up for the absence of such councils with individual countries.
Among the business councils, the most active in the Asian region are the Russia-Singapore Business Council, the Russia-ASEAN Business Council and the Russia-Indonesia Business Council. The latter, for example, of all the key forms of business diplomacy and interaction with foreign counterparts, gives priority to annual joint meetings within the framework of the Russia-Indonesia business forums timed to coincide with the meetings of the Russia-Indonesia joint commission on trade, economic and technical cooperation.
It is worth noting that there is also much activity on the part of Asian business associations, including business councils in Russia. For example, the Chamber of Commerce of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam has its representative office in Moscow. It carries on systematic work on building relations between Vietnamese and Russian companies, primarily using the advantages granted by the agreement on the free trade zone between the Eurasian Economic Union and Vietnam. Similar structures in Russia represent the Philippines, Cambodia and Thailand. The main agent of Singapore’s business diplomacy is Enterprise Singapore, the national agency reformed last year, represented by its Moscow office, which provides organizational, information and financial support to companies from Singapore.
In the Russian Federation, there are three basic formats for the activities of business councils. Most of them exist in the form of organizations without a legal entity status—a kind of a club of some organizations and commercial companies. Close to them is the form with NP status (non-profit partnership). The third option is to assume the format of an autonomous non-profit organization (ANO). There is another fourth, rarest option, when council itself functions in the format of an organization without a legal entity status, but with an executive structure created for it by decision of the governing body, which has a legal entity status.
Let us take a look at the work of the Russia-Singapore Business Council established in October 2009 on the initiative of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation supported by the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation and the State Corporation Rostec. The choice of this council was due to the fact that upon its establishment the greatest progress had been seen in the trade and economic relations between these two countries. (There is no doubt that the creation and activities of the council were just a few of great many relevant factors, although highly important.) Moreover, during the period since 2013 (except for 2016), Singapore has been the main foreign economic partner for Russia in Southeast Asia. Today, Singapore is the place where more than 400 Russian companies operate, while Singapore companies in recent years have been among the largest foreign investors in the economy of Russian regions (Bykov & Goh, 2012).
execution of decisions of the Russia-Singapore Inter-governmental High-level Commission (HLC);
increasing the role of interested representatives of the Russian business community in the formulation and implementation of state policy in the field of Russia-Singapore economic ties;
promotion of Russian technologies, goods and services in the markets of Southeast Asia;
bringing best foreign practices to Russia;
attracting investments in Russian regional projects;
informational support of participants of the Russian market and the market of the Southeast Asia countries;
establishment of the Russian Cultural Centre in Singapore; and
arranging tours of Russian music, art and sports stars,.
It is noted that commercial goals are combined with cultural and purely diplomatic objectives.
In the period 2009–2014, the Russia-Singapore Business Council (RSBC) had been acting mostly in representative capacity, participating in HLC sessions and organizing visits and meetings of Russian officials and business representatives. Since 2014, it has changed its operations, with main emphasis placed on the expansion of bilateral and multilateral turnover between Russia and Singapore and other countries of Southeast Asia. By the decision of the Board of the Council, LLC RSBC Trade House was established that assumed not only the functions of the Council’s executive structure but also started to execute real contracts, mainly in the sphere of high-tech sectors. In December 2017, with the support of the Council and the State Corporation Rostec, the company called Progression was established in Singapore, which was also granted the authority of trade house and the Centre for the promotion of Russian high-tech companies and presentation of investment projects.
At the time of its creation, RSBC represented about ten companies. In 2018, the Council already consists of about 60 Russian companies and production associations (which employ about one million people), with about another 30 companies and organizations being partners of the Council, representing mainly Singaporean companies and some other companies from South and Southeast Asia. A branch of the RSBC operates in Novosibirsk, and its representatives are active in St. Petersburg, Orel, Cheboksary, Yekaterinburg and Singapore. In 2018, Russia-Singapore Youth Business Council was established by the Council and Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.
What is it actually doing?
There are regular international conferences and round tables held, attended by invited government officials, company leaders and recognized experts in particular fields. The largest forum on cooperation with ASEAN took place in May 2016 in Sochi. It received over 2500 participants. One to two conferences are held annually in some countries involving 20–250 participants. The so-called business missions are held when groups of foreign businessmen visit regions and particular companies in Russia, and, respectively, Russian groups abroad. Direct contacts and negotiations are organized between companies or business associations. Since 2014, there have been about 20 business missions of Russian companies to Singapore organized by the RSBC. Business councils are very active participants in preparing the agenda for high-level inter-governmental commissions. They participate in the preparation and sometimes oversee the programmes with certain years dedicated to a specific country or city. Thus, the year 2016 was dedicated to Russia and ASEAN; 2018 to Moscow and Singapore. Active participation, and sometimes replacement in the process of cooperation, is seen on the part of business councils and trade missions. For example, Singapore also witnessed reopening of the trade mission only at the end of 2017. The activities of business councils informally and gradually promote positive image of the country, which helps to develop its reputation, increase mutual understanding between countries and peoples.
Turning into an important line of activity is the organization of large-scale Russia-Singapore business dialogues. The first two of them were held in 2016–2017 in Moscow, the third—in 2018 in Singapore. They have already become the leading dialogue platform for representatives of the authorities and businesses of the two countries. In addition, we see the organization of numerous business missions of representatives of Russian companies to Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Cambodia, the Philippines and employees of Singaporean companies to the Russian regions, bilateral business meetings and multilateral round tables for industrialists, investors and representatives of the service sector and trade.
In December 2017, the RSBC organized and held in Phnom Penh the first Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) Business Forum—Cambodia under the patronage of the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC)—the supranational body of the Eurasian Economic Council, which now includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia. In May 2018, at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, the RSBC acted as a partner of the Russia-ASEAN business breakfast, organized by the Russia-ASEAN Business Council and the EEC. Thus, the RSBC, being a non-governmental organization, is currently playing a very significant role in the development of Russia-Singapore economic relations, and also participates in preparing agendas for cultural and other areas of cooperation.
Finally, it was the RSBC that in 2014–2015 was one of the initiators that stressed the need to create a free trade zone between the EAEU and Singapore. At the Eurasian Forum “Eurasian Week”, held in October 2018 in Yerevan, an idea was voiced from the rostrum, albeit jokingly, that the Russia-Singapore Business Council might be turned into Eurasian-Singapore Council.
One of the potential tools to promote integration in the EAEU-ASEAN space can be the electronic international trading and service Business-to-Business (B2B) Platform RSTrade, which now operates in four languages: Russian, English, Indonesian and Chinese. It is 100% Russia designed. It represents high-tech industrial and service companies. Its functionality includes trade, logistics, legal and financial services, payments and documents in electronic format in the online mode, automated customs services and contract manufacturing—a unique service that allows manufacturing of products at the facilities of other companies, localization of technologies and productions and building of international teams to assign research tasks. In 2017, the Platform was integrated into the GISP (the State Industry Information System) portal, supported by the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation; in September 2018, an agreement was signed on integration with the largest service platform in Southeast Asia—KamelOne—operated by Singapore company vCargoCloud, and in October 2018, it was announced that RSTrade was becoming the main service of foreign economic activity for the Eurasian network of industrial cooperation, subcontracting and technology transfer, being created under the auspices of the EEC.
Now the Platform is being used by as many as some 82,000 companies from 17 countries. Another 14 represent the platform of vCargoCloud. Thus, the RSBC tools are gradually becoming an effective gateway to enhance interaction between the EAEU and ASEAN, among other things preparing the ground for comprehensive agreement on a free trade zone between the EAEU and ASEAN. The example of the Russia-Singapore Business Council is a case in point of how successful business diplomacy can be at that grassroots (basic) level.
Conclusion
In general, in our opinion, the tools of business diplomacy in recent years play an increasingly important role in both interstate relations and in communications between major international integration associations. This factor should be taken into account when preparing the agenda for international summits and when analysing the current international situation and forecasting trends. However, tools and institutions of business diplomacy can play both constructive and destructive roles. Russian business diplomacy has its crucial differences from business diplomacy of Western countries. Its institutions are often more acceptable and much easier to understand for Eastern countries, many of which have similar structures. The Russian business diplomacy model needs to be further analysed, also using the comparative analysis against Western and Eastern systems.