World Geostrategic Insights interview with Eduard Voytenko on practices and tools for ethically influencing institutional decision-making in Russia, and in the wider Eurasian region; on how technology, artificial intelligence and geopolitics are changing corporate strategies regarding government relations (GR) and lobbying activities; and how foreign companies can proactively and transparently engage with Russian authorities.
Eduard Voytenko is Managing Partner and CEO at Baikal Lobridge, a leading consulting firm specializing in institutional relations, and founder of Edward’s East Strategies. With over 15 years of international experience spanning Russia, the European Union, Central Asia, and the Gulf states, he is a recognized expert in government relations (GR), regulatory lobbying, and institutional risk management for multinational corporations and large companies. In addition, he holds the position of Associate Professor and heads the Professional Development Course at the prestigious MGIMO University, and directs master’s programs focused on GR and lobbying techniques both at MGIMO and Moscow State University. He also serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Lake Baikal Environmental Foundation, and he is a member of the Society of European Affairs Professionals (SEAP).
Q1 – The book *Lobbying and GR: Concepts, Functions, Tools*, which you co-authored with Anastasia Parfenchikova, offers a practical and academic overview of government relations (GR) and lobbying activities, focusing on fundamental principles, industry practices in Russia, and tools for ethically influencing institutional decision-making. What is the fundamental difference between lobbying and government relations (GR)?
A1 – Lobbying and GR (Government Relations) are often used interchangeably. This happens either because the differences between them are not fully understood, or because of the negative connotations that the term “lobbying” still carries in many countries, including Russia. In practice, however, these are related but distinct activities.
GR is primarily about building systematic communication between business and the government. Its objectives include analyzing the regulatory environment, monitoring legislative initiatives, assessing political and regulatory risks, developing a government engagement strategy, interacting with industry associations, and building sustainable relationships with the relevant government authorities. GR is largely about creating an ecosystem of trust and dialogue between business and the state.
Lobbying, for its part, is more task-oriented. Its main goal is to influence specific government decisions for the benefit of a company, industry, or other interest group. This could mean promoting or amending draft laws, changing ministerial acts or government regulations, shaping a particular government position on a given matter.
To put it simply, GR sets the stage for communication and interest representation, while lobbying begins when you need to influence the decision-making process directly.
It is worth noting that lobbying has a clear socio-political dimension. By advancing business interests in decision-making, lobbyists help the state take into account the economic and social consequences of regulation. In that sense, lobbying acts as a feedback tool between the state and the public, facilitating more balanced decisions.
Q2 – What are the main technological and methodological tools useful for influencing the decision-making process?
A2 – GR and lobbying are interdisciplinary fields. We have a well-defined toolkit that could be adapted to the specifics of individual projects. All the tools can be divided into two broad categories: analytical and communicative. In practice, they almost always work together – high-quality analysis comes before engagement with the state and accompanies it at every stage. Let me outline the key ones.
The most important analytical tool is monitoring of the regulatory and political landscape. It helps companies understand which draft laws are being prepared, what positions the relevant government bodies are taking, and what trends are emerging in state policy.
The second important tool is regulatory analysis and legal expertise. This is not merely about tracking legislative initiatives but about gaining a profound understanding of legislation, its internal contradictions, and potential impact on businesses. It is vital to prepare arguments for engaging with the government and to map stakeholders – identifying all the actors who can influence decision-making.
On the communication side, industry associations, expert councils, working groups within the government, and various advisory platforms play a huge role. Through them, businesses can build a consistent dialogue with the government and advance the industry’s consolidated position.
Participation in the regulatory process is a separate area. We try to engage in discussions on legislative initiatives at an early stage, when regulation is still in the making. Often, we have to draft amendments for proposed legislation. To push them forward, we use both direct communication with the authorities and special mechanisms, like Russia’s regulatory impact assessment framework.
Let’s not forget about personal connections. By themselves, they are unlikely to swing a decision in your favor, but they can facilitate a constructive dialogue with the people in charge.
Finally, PR and digital tools also matter in our work. Shaping a public and expert debate over an issue helps attract government attention and create an additional momentum for decision-making, while also protecting business from external threats.
No tool alone guarantees a result. Effective influence is always a combination of expertise, strategy, communication, and understanding of how the decision-making process actually works in a given country.
Q3 – Lobbying activities vary significantly around the world, differing primarily in approach, regulatory rigor, and the financial resources involved. What are the main characteristics of lobbying in Russia? How does it differ from lobbying in Western countries and the Middle East?
A3 – In terms of key approaches, lobbying in Russia is, in my view, closer to its Western equivalents. Lobbying, in its modern sense, refers to legal institutional activity aimed at influencing decision-making. It came to Russia in the 1990s, along with international companies and the market economy. As a result, Russian lobbyists share many tools with their European and American counterparts.
But there are differences. They stem from the specifics of Russia’s political system. Although parliamentary lobbying does exist here, the executive branch has a strong influence on decision-making. This requires continued engagement with the relevant ministries, services, and agencies throughout the decision-making process. When interacting with the legislature, you should bear in mind the dominance of a single political party which champions the state’s priorities.
In Russia, GR is more closely tied to the logic of state policy and national priorities than in many Western countries. Businesses seek not only to push forward their own interests but also show how they relate to government objectives and political priorities – be it technological sovereignty, import substitution, digitalization, or the development of specific sectors prioritized by the state. Therefore, GR in Russia tends to be more systematic and strategic – it must operate “in step” with state policy.
There are also differences in tools and actors. Russia is more cautious about using public pressure. The role of civil society organizations – trade unions, environmental movements, investor associations – as independent players in the lobbying process is visibly weaker. Russia has no equivalents to American Political Action Committees (PAC) as institutionalized vehicles for political financing.
PR and media also play a role here, but using these tools requires a sophisticated and delicate tuning, because direct public pressure is far from always effective.
When it comes to regulation in our field, it is worth noting that Russia has no separate lobbying legislation or public registers of individuals engaged in this activity. However, this does not mean that there are no rules at all. Business-to-government interaction is regulated by a broad range of legislative acts covering law-making, business associations, public debate on initiatives, anti-corruption compliance, access to information, and government engagement procedures. So, GR and lobbying are legal, transparent, and institutional practices, although there is still no standalone lobbying law in Russia.
This has several consequences. On the one hand, this gives more flexibility in the tools we use and more confidentiality for clients, counterparts, and stakeholders. On the other hand, the absence of a single law fuels prejudices against lobbying – both among some government officials and the general public. People erroneously associate lobbying with corrupt, illegal schemes and exclusively back-room influence.
The absence of legislation has an impact on corporate practices. We often see companies with full-fledged GR functions but with no dedicated GR and lobbying budget – or a very modest one. Hospitality expenses and business association activities are usually covered. But when a major regulatory challenge arises – say, Russia’s State Duma initiates a bill that would limit foreign capital share in a company – funds are sought from the PR, marketing, or legal department budget. Many international headquarters still take it very linearly – if there is no lobbying law, there is no institutional lobbying either. In practice, of course, this is not the case.
But the situation is gradually changing. We see a real boom of interest in the profession – new curricula, market studies, and professional conferences are emerging. More and more companies are establishing their own GR functions, and young specialists are viewing the field as a promising career path. In my view, it is the development of educational programs and the professional community that is changing the perception of lobbying, validating it as a legitimate tool for interest representation.
In the Middle East, the logic of GR and lobbying differs from both Western countries and Russia. For instance, sovereign wealth funds and state investment vehicles play an important role in the region. In many cases, they act not only as a source of capital but also as independent strategic players with their own investment priorities and vision of economic development. For international businesses, it is vital therefore to understand the interests of such institutions and show how a project aligns with their long-term goals.
Another specific feature of working in the Middle East is the great importance of personalities and personal trust. While formal procedures matter, much of the communication revolves around long-term engagement with key decision-makers and influential economic players.
The Gulf States are characterized by an even more centralized decision-making system where long-term development strategies and priorities of individual political leaders matter most. In Saudi Arabia, for example, the Vision 2030 program serves as a guideline. It is designed to help the state diversify its economy, develop high-tech sectors, attract investment, and reduce dependence on oil revenues. Similar national programs exist in other countries of the region.
On these last points, Russia and the Middle East have a lot in common. Nevertheless, to succeed in the region, you need to understand local specifics and avoid mechanically transferring Russian experience.
Q4 – Is ethics important in lobbying? What transparency mechanisms are necessary to legitimize the work of government relations (GR) professionals in the eyes of the public?
A4 – In lobbying, ethics is of critical importance because it is what distinguishes it from corruption and informal pressure. Modern lobbying is not a “shadowy” practice – it is professional work at the intersection of politics, economics, law, and communications. For this reason, trust in it depends directly on ethical compliance.
The key principles here are legality, integrity, professionalism, responsibility, and confidentiality. A GR specialist must act strictly within the legal framework, avoid manipulation and inaccurate data, respect institutions, and take into account not only the client’s interests but also potential consequences for the state and society.
A separate fundamental issue is transparency. It is transparency that legitimizes lobbying in the eyes of the public. Countries with advanced regulatory frameworks typically have registers of lobbyists, requirements for client disclosure, accountability for engagement with the government bodies, and rules on political financing. Russia has no standalone lobbying law. Therefore, transparency is guaranteed through broader mechanisms – the already mentioned public debate on legislative initiatives, regulatory impact assessment, and anti-corruption rules.
But it is important to maintain a balance between openness and confidentiality. Business is not always willing to disclose its strategies, that’s why absolute transparency is impossible. This said, the more institutionalized and understandable B2G relations become in the eyes of the public, the greater the trust in lobbying as a natural element of social life.
At present, Russia’s lobbying market is still emerging. There are not as many GR and lobbying companies here as in Western Europe or the United States. But the existing players adhere to ethical principles.
Q5 – You are the founder and CEO of Baikal Lobridge, a Russian consulting firm specializing in government relations (GR) and lobbying. How has the role of the lobbyist evolved in Russia in recent years? What specific skills should a modern government relations (GR) professional possess to navigate complex political and economic interests?
A5 – We see how the popularity of GR as a profession and a function is growing. As an institution, GR and lobbying have already taken shape in Russia and are now quite mature. This year, Baikal Lobridge conducted a survey among CEOs of large and medium-sized businesses. The data showed that 75% of the polled companies have a GR function in place. Meanwhile, it does not necessarily exist as a dedicated department – consultants or CEOs and their deputies can handle it. We see that the GR function is no longer just a supportive element. In Russia, it is transforming into a management and economic function, and a core of strategy.
The development of the field is linked to trends in state policy. Dirigisme is intensifying when the state is actively influencing the economy, steering industrial development, and setting its own development priorities. Behind closed ministerial doors, decisions are increasingly being taken about who gets to grow, who gets bailed out, and who gets held back for the good of the state and society. According to research of the GR industry conducted by Baikal Lobridge in 2024, 83% of respondents have recently encountered new regulatory risks.
When the state is deeply involved in economic processes, officials increasingly need business expertise. Here, the lobbyist acts as a channel, as someone who does not complain but offers ready-made solutions. His job is to show in time where the state might accidentally ‘”break” the market, drive the prices up, create shortages, scare off foreign investment, or set back technological progress.
Control over foreign investment is being tightened. GR specialists and lobbyists help foreign companies protect investments and act as navigators for businesses in a complex system of government administration. In essence, GR and lobbying operate as instruments for protecting foreign investment. We negotiate localization terms, help get approvals for dividend payments from an ad hoc government sub-commission, participate in transaction clearances, and develop a business resilience strategy when competitive or regulatory pressure is mounting.
In recent years the development of artificial intelligence has become another fundamental trend. AI is already transforming the work of GR specialists, primarily in monitoring, processing large volumes of data, and preparing analytics. Many tasks which used to take weeks can now be done in hours. But this does not eliminate the role of a human. In GR, the cost of an error is too high, so any outcome needs expert verification.
Such conditions require GR professionals to demonstrate a set of skills – both hard and soft. The former include deep knowledge of constitutional law and Russian legislation, state governance system, specifics of government work and state priorities, fundamentals of project management and strategic planning. Besides, a GR specialist must know how to handle large volumes of data, use innovative analytical tools, including AI. The required soft skills include communication, creativity, persistence, the ability to think out-of-the-box, and emotional intelligence.
Q6 – In an ever-changing geopolitical landscape marked by serious conflicts, how can international companies maintain a constructive dialogue with Russian authorities?
A6 – Despite geopolitical tensions, dialogue between international business and the Russian authorities continues. From the outside, it might seem that for Western companies doing business in Russia is almost impossible. But in practice, it is not the case. Many companies continue to operate in the Russian market, invest, and engage with regulators. For instance, in pharma and medical devices, foreign producers remain active in public procurement and are still a vital part of the healthcare system. Western companies are present in food, perfume and cosmetics, agriculture, retail, and others. And many of them are doing well enough.
Dialogue with them is grounded in economic and social spheres. For regulators, the issues of employment, tax revenues, technological advancement, supply chain resilience, and business contributions to industrial development are crucial. The more business demonstrates its relevance to the economy and society, the more resilient its position.
Participation in social and educational initiatives, support for regional development and professional training are of great importance for dialogue. Such projects help build lasting trust and show that the company is serious about its long-term presence in the country.
The state itself creates channels of communication with businesses. Russia’s regulatory system is sometimes perceived as closed, but in practice, many officials are open to substantive discussion once a company comes with concrete proposals and is willing to speak the language of economics and industry expertise.
Therefore, my main recommendation to international companies would be not to walk away from a dialogue. In the face of uncertainty, it is tempting to wait and see. But in practice, dialogue, transparent positioning and willingness to openly discuss friction points can lower risks and yield mutually acceptable solutions.
Q7 – What is the most common mistake foreign companies make when approaching Russian government decision-making processes?
A7 – One of the most common mistakes foreign companies make in Russia is being reactive rather than proactive about risks. Many start building communication with the government only when a problem has already arisen. In the Russian system, this often means that the window for an effective intervention has already shut.
Another common problem is an insufficient understanding of the decision-making process. Foreign companies are likely to underestimate the need for sustained, consistent work with the relevant ministries, industry associations, and expert communities.
Another extreme is when companies delegate all problem-solving to business associations, forgetting that an organization set up to address industry-wide issues is unlikely to take on an individual case.
The geopolitical context makes the situation even more complicated. Many Western companies have found themselves caught between the devil and the deep blue sea: on the one hand, sanctions, pressure and requirements by foreign shareholders; on the other, Russian countermeasures and the domestic regulatory framework. As a result, companies tend to take an overly cautious stance, with excessive compliance limiting their ability to build working relations with the Russian authorities even when it is perfectly legal and necessary.
Another problem arises from the perception gap between headquarters and local teams. International offices sometimes view Russia through the prism of political risks and external consultant recommendations which have nothing to do with Russia. Meanwhile, local managers work within a system on a daily basis and grasp its practical specifics better. Consequently, important signals on opportunities and risks sometimes get lost or are interpreted primarily in a political rather than business context.
Finally, companies should be very careful in choosing GR consultants and partners. Before getting to work, it is worth thoroughly examining the agency’s profile, its experience, involvement in public projects, and knowledge of a specific industry. In GR, it is particularly important to work with those who comprehend the real logic of decision-making.
Q8 – How does Baikal Lobridge support international companies in navigating the complexities of the current Russian regulatory framework?
A8 – Russia’s regulatory environment is truly complex and rapidly changing – especially for international businesses. Our job, as GR consultants and lobbyists, is to help companies not simply react to changes but build a systematic approach to managing risks and engaging with the government.
A key instrument here is continued monitoring of legislative and socio-political initiatives. In Russia, the government is sufficiently open at the rule-drafting stage, but it is crucial to understand where to look for signals of future changes and how to interpret them correctly. We track not just draft rules, but also regulators’ position, industry debate, and shifts in state policy more broadly. This allows us to identify potential risks and business opportunities well in advance.
Stakeholder mapping is also important. It means understanding which state bodies, officials, industry associations, and expert structures have real weight in decision-making. In the Russian system, formal authority does not always entirely reflect real influence. Therefore, it is important to have a solid grasp of the internal logic of processes.
Taken together, these elements form the basis for a company’s GR strategy – identifying key regulatory risks, priorities in B2G relations, potential conflict points, and opportunities for constructive partnership. For international companies, aligning their business objectives with state priorities is of particular importance.
In addition, ongoing communication with the government bodies and the professional community also matters. Participation in working groups, advisory councils, industry associations, and expert debates helps not only convey business position but also gain a deeper understanding of regulators’ logic, potential shifts in approaches, and issues sensitive to the state long before official decisions have been drafted. This systematic, strategic work generally enables international companies to navigate the Russian regulatory environment more resiliently.
Q9 – What are the main criteria you use to map key stakeholders in a high-impact Government Relations (GR) project?
A9 – When mapping key stakeholders in a GR project, we usually consider a set of criteria. First is formal authority: which state bodies, departments, and officials oversee a given issue, and at which stage the decision is made.
The second criterion is KPIs and state priorities. This includes both formal performance indicators for the government bodies and officials as well as informal political priorities, which may evolve depending on the current agenda. Effective interaction requires understanding which objectives are strategic from the government’s perspective, and how a company’s project correlates with them.
The third criterion includes informal influence. In any political and administrative system, there are individuals whose real influence might significantly outweigh their formal status. This applies to both personal connections within public structures and relations with large business groups, industry associations, and elite coalitions.
That is why stakeholder mapping cannot rely solely on desk-based analytics. It is vital to combine institutional structure analysis with sustained communication with people from inside the system who help understand how the decision-making process actually works and where the real centers of power sit.
Q10 – You are also the founder and CEO of Edward’s East Strategies, an international consulting firm based in Astana, Kazakhstan, specializing in Government Relations (GR), Public Affairs, and corporate sustainability (ESG). What opportunities do you see for companies in the current Eurasian market?
A10 – Today, the Eurasian market is among the few with a sustainably high demand for foreign investment and room for dynamic growth. This is particularly true in Central Asia, especially in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
Uzbekistan is currently undergoing a major transformation: the country is moving toward WTO accession, and many international companies are literally “sitting on the fence”, watching as the government is trying to adapt the rules of play to global standards. For businesses, this is about predictability of the environment and security of investment.
Since 2022, Kazakhstan, for its part, has become a magnet for international business which was rethinking its regional strategies. We see the launch of new production and logistic projects, in particular in food, processing, and infrastructure. The states in the region are genuinely interested in capital, technologies, and tax base, which has already been reflected in the KPIs of officials and development institutions.
But businesses are still very cautious. Many investors note that a formally open economy does not always translate into fully transparent practice. Risks of informal barriers persist, as does heavy dependence on the quality of communication with individual stakeholders. Therefore, the volume of investment in the region, in my view, is still below its real potential.
Here, GR practice is coming to the forefront. It is quite difficult to open an office and hire a local team in Central Asia. Companies that enter the region without a comprehensive understanding of the political and administrative environment, frequently face challenges right from the start.
It is also important to bear in mind that Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are members of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). This means that a significant portion of regulation – especially technical regulation, customs, and labeling – is developed at the supranational level within the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC). Unlike the EU, the EAEU remains predominantly an economic entity where all decisions are negotiated among member-states. It is therefore insufficient for businesses to build relations exclusively with national regulators or the EEC. They often need to understand the interests and positions of several union states at once, since they will determine the final regulatory framework.
Q11 – You are the author and director of the master’s course “GR-Management and Lobbying Technologies” at the Department of Advertising and Public Relations of the MGIMO School of International Journalism. What advice would you give to those aspiring to a career in international public relations in an increasingly polarized world?
A11 – My main advice would be to develop interdisciplinary skills. It is not enough to be a good communicator. You need to understand politics, economics, law, international relations, and be able to analyze decision-making in various countries. It is essential to remain flexible and be able to build dialogue even amid severe political controversies.
The world is getting more polarized, states are getting more actively involved in the economy, and the significance of sanctions, trade barriers, technological sovereignty, and political risks is growing. Against this backdrop, companies need specialists to help businesses maintain institutional resilience via constructive engagement with the government authorities.
Eduard Voytenko – Managing Partner and CEO of Baikal Lobridge, founder of Edward’s East Strategies.