According to the Union of Russian Brewers, the system will work effectively for both business and the state, if the USAIS. The Union of Russian Brewers throughout the whole period of the system's work discusses its work with government agencies and makes current proposals. For example, the council proposed the introduction of a system for promptly informing users of failures and ensure the smooth operation of USAIS during the elimination of failures. The Union proposed to reduce the time of fixing the application in USAIS to 30 minutes (there were 12 hours) and the Rosalkogolregulirovanie introduced this proposal.

Since the USAIS work, the government has repeatedly proposed to introduce additional measures to control the production of beer, to identify and destroy the "gray zones". The union of Russian brewers and multinational companies appeal to state bodies in that additional measures are financially expensive and unnecessary. To date, no additional measure proposed by the state has been legislated.

We made an analysis of cases in six areas of GR transnational brewing companies. Information we took from open analytical and news sources.

Summarizing the analyzed cases, it is possible to single out the most popular formats of interaction between brewers and representatives of state authorities. For the most part, these are meetings, negotiations and round tables in the framework of conferences and forums. A fairly large number of industry brewing forums are held in Russia, attended by representatives of the federal and regional authorities. This is the Eurasian Brewery Forum, "AlcoCongress", "Beer- (year)", St. Petersburg Forum of Brewers. In addition, round-table discussions and meetings in different regions of Russia are held especially on topical issues. For example, on the introduction of USAIS, the restriction of plastic packaging, the round table "Separate regulation of the alcohol market: the formation of unified national approaches to the production and turnover of brewing products", a round table "Issues of introducing USAIS for brewing products in wholesale and retail trade organizations". In addition, representatives of the brewing industry frequent visitors to major inter-industry forums, such as the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, the Russian Investment Forum in Sochi, the Gaidar Forum. Brewing and related industries interact with each other, holding various meetings and accepting road maps and agreements. For example, manufacturers of plastic containers and the brewing industry signed an agreement on free competition.

In addition, the Union of Russian Brewers and manufacturers are responding promptly to spontaneous adoption of regulatory procedures by open letters to the president, prime minister and profile ministries. The analysis of the cases showed that the brewing industry is solidary, and, if necessary, foreign colleagues and representatives of related industries, as well as representatives of state power themselves, stand up for its protection.

To date, the main strategic task of transnational brewing companies is to maintain constructive interaction with the Union of Russian Brewers and public authorities. The companies react promptly and carefully to all regulatory innovations, act as experts when interacting with representatives of public authorities and express their position to decision-makers.

2.8 Features GR strategy of the brewing industry (according to research interviews)

For a more detailed study of the GR strategy of the brewing industry, we conducted a series of interviews with specialists working in the field of GR. Interviewers were made by 3 representatives of multinational brewing companies: "United Breweries Heineken", "Baltika" and "SUN InBev". These are the largest companies in the industry, producing more than 80% of all brewing products.

Respondents were asked the following questions:

1. Does your brewery belong to an association / nonprofit organization of the brewing industry?

2. How does your brewing company implement the GR strategy, independently or assign it to the association / non-profit organization that it includes?

3. What is the type of interaction between the brewing company and the state: separate or unified for the whole industry?

4. How do you assess the success of GR-relationship of your company and the industry as a whole? What is more in the percentage, wins or losses of GR-campaigns?

5. What is the main strategy of GR? What is this participation, passive (analysis of government actions, bills) or active (participation in the discussion of laws, expert activity)?

6. Who performs the main tasks of the GR, company employees or third-party organizations and consultants?

7. In your opinion, do associations / non-profit organizations effectively implement the GR-strategy (= positive result)?

8. Does your company's GR use the experience of the West or have to find its own way?

From the side of SUN InBev (AB InBev part of AB InBev Efes Group), Alexander Mazanov, the head of the department for interaction with federal authorities, responded. The detailed interview allowed to draw the following conclusions.

Sun Inbev is a member of 3 non-commercial organizations of the brewing industry - the Union of Russian Brewers, the RusBrand Commonwealth, the Industry for Ecology Association RusPEC.

GR-strategy of the company is developed on the basis of national and local strategies for Western Europe. The Russian GR strategy is a reflection of the global strategy, but taking into account the specific features of the country's economic and social policy. The company AB InBev implements GR forces of its employees, pointing to consultants.

Before the implementation of GR-strategy or projects, AB InBev analyzes the world practice, specific cases. This helps to avoid mistakes, as well as to argue the chosen position. In addition, the use of international experience helps to develop a balanced approach to the development of GR-strategy.

The GR-strategy of AB InBev includes both passive and active participation: government actions, bills are analyzed to react quickly and effectively, and interact with authorities through expert activities, round tables. The government constantly introduces new restrictions to regulate the brewing industry, so the work of GR departments of transnational companies is always there.

The state authorities are ready for a dialogue with brewing manufacturers, are ready to listen and consider proposals, but in the event that the proposals reflect the industry position. Therefore, before expressing a position to the federal authorities, large companies agree on their proposals, achieve a unified vision of the position and express it to the state. Most often, the position of the industry on the sidelines of power is expressed by the Union of Russian Brewers. The Union of Russian Brewers acts in some way a filter of proposals. If there is disagreement among the participants, then the proposal will not be presented to the state. The interaction of a non-profit organization and the state is more credible than lobbying a particular company for their interests. In addition, it is assumed that the state only hears to those proposals that express the common opinion of the industry and are supported by all companies and the Union in particular. Therefore, 99% GR of AB InBev is supported by a non-profit organization. All projects pass through the Union of Russian Brewers. This is done to ensure that the state correctly perceives the message of the project, without contact with the brand. Such interaction is more effective.

As for the regional level, the branches have the opportunity to interact with local authorities on specific issues.

The success of GR of AB InBev is expressed in subsidies, benefits. GR with legislative and executive power in the sphere of regulation is consistent with the Union of Russian Brewers and is implemented by him. According to A. Mazanov, FIFA 2018 promotes the implementation of GR, as the partner company is positively perceived by the state authorities. Nevertheless, GR of AB InBev is associated with risks that have financial effects.

As for lobbying, it is difficult to name successful. At the end of 2017, the industry had a significant victory: an amendment was approved to permit the production of beer in plastic containers over 1.5 liters for export.

The actual direction of the brewing industry is the creation of a bill providing for separate regulation for strong alcohol, beer, wine and champagne. In Chapter 2, in a separate section, this topic is discussed in more detail. The Brewers believe that the state will consider the concept of regulating the industry, but it will not develop it, as this is not its direct task. Producers of brewing products intend to propose to consolidate to the state at the legislative level such regulation, in which it is comfortable for them to conduct their activity and develop themselves.

Respondent from the company "United Breweries Heineken" made a manager for work with government bodies Arina Flugova.

The company "United Breweries Heineken" is in the Union of Russian Brewers and is actively involved in the work of the Union. Thus, the company implements the GR strategy both independently and jointly with the business association. In the Union there are commissions on the main issues, members of which are representatives of companies. Thus, decisions within the Union are accepted only with the approval of the members.

The interlocutor believes that interaction with state authorities is a single task for the entire industry. Active work of the Union opens prospects for further implementation of the unified GR strategy of the brewing industry.

Heineken conducts active GR activities: participates in the discussion of laws, expert activities. The main tasks are performed by company employees and associations. To settle certain issues, experts are involved. GR-activity takes into account the experience of different countries. As for the percentage of victories and the loss of GR-campaigns, Arina finds it difficult to answer. In general, the government listens to the opinion of the industry, which helps to reach compromise solutions.

The next respondent was Irina Fedorova, Senior GR director of the East Europe Baltika.

Baltika is a member of the Union of Russian Brewers. The implementation of the GR strategy depends on its objectives. The strategy for GR work is entrusted to the directorate, and tasks within the strategy are implemented by various instruments within the framework of Russian legislation. The main task of the GR department of the Baltika is to protect the right to conduct business. Those changes in legislation that have the same influence on the industry, and do not cause conflicts of interest between companies, are worked out by the Union. The main tasks of the GR strategy are carried out by the employees and are their KPIs.

As for the evaluation of the success of GR-campaigns, Irina noted that in 2017 no risks were realized. Baltika is part of the Carlsberg group, so the GR-activity uses the experience of colleagues. At the same time, the specifics of the Russian GR dictate the need to seek own way.

The interview provided some important conclusions. We found out that all transnational companies of the brewing industry are members of the Union of Russian Brewers. In addition, they coordinate their positions on key issues, and the Union of Russian Brewers represents a unified position of the industry. In the opinion of the respondents, the authorities see the true message of the position, without being distracted by brands, when the position is presented by a non-profit organization. In addition, government agencies take into account a single industry position when it expresses a consolidated business position.

Despite a large number of restrictive regulations, brewers believe that they manage to successfully implement GR and lobbying campaigns. In 2017, not one specific regulatory bill was adopted. In many respects it is the merit of the Union of Russian Brewers, which acts as an industry expert and constructively opposes the state in an attempt to further regulate the industry. In addition, in 2017 the brewers succeeded in lobbying permission for the export of beer in plastic bottles over 1.5 liters.

Large companies implement GR-strategies by their employees, pointing to experts. At the same time, employees of companies are included in a standing commission in the Union of Russian Brewers. Active work on GR is in cooperation with the Union. The Union is the coordinating link between large companies, within which a consolidated position is developed. The Union does not voice the uncoordinated position in cooperation with the authorities. This approach allows you to achieve maximum efficiency from the GR-company.

Representatives of the companies share their interaction with the state to solve current problems, respond to bills, and work for the future. One such long-run is the development of separate regulation for the brewing industry. Not only representatives of the brewing industry are involved, but also interested lawyers, a specially created group. Respondent Alexander Mazanov believes that the industry itself must develop a comfortable regulatory concept, and then submit it to the authorities for discussion. The authorities are ready to consider offers of business.

In addition, interviews were conducted with craft breweries. The analysis of the interview showed that the craft breweries do not deal with GR-activities independently and do not have GR-departments, in rare cases entrusting it to business associations.

Regulatory activity of the state creates both prospects and threats for business of brewing companies. In states with a strong state presence in the economy, like Russia, interaction with authorities is the determining factor in the successful functioning and development of the company. Building positive relations with the authorities is one of the main tasks for large international companies. The advantage of brewers in the dialogue with the authorities is the long-term experience of GR-activities of companies in various local markets around the world, as well as understanding the nature of the influence on the power structures and technologies of civilized GR.



Conclusion

Globalization and accelerated economic growth have led to a large number of multinational companies. These companies have huge financial and material resources that allow companies to transform them into power resources. Thus, transnational companies have become notable players not only in the social and economic life of the country, but also in the political. Gradually, large companies became part of the political decision-making process, as they have the ability to influence state actors. In addition, companies have the necessary tools to transform social reality.

In the 1990s, transnational companies came to Russia. Among them there were also large foreign brewing companies. Transnational brewing companies in Russia are more than 80% of the entire industry. The state recognizes their position for the position of the whole industry.

The interaction of companies in the brewing industry and public authorities in Russia is carried out in accordance with the model of neo-corporatism. The brewing industry is an oligopoly, based on three international companies - AB InBev Efes Group, Heineken, Baltika (part of the Carlsberg group). These companies form the GR strategy of the industry together with the Union of Russian Brewers. The Union of Russian Brewers interacts with the state on behalf of the entire industry. It coordinates and formulates a single industry position on politics and offers it to the state.

In Russia, there are two trends in the implementation of GR. One is based on the personal influence of the CEO; the second assumes influence on the state through business associations. The predominance of the type of representation of interests largely depends on the specifics of the industry. This study showed that in the brewing industry large companies operate through the Union of Russian Brewers.

An important feature of the Russian GR is the fact that interest groups have a loyal politician in government. This determines the effectiveness of GR and lobbying. In the past few years, the lobbying of members of the State Duma has been replaced by the government and the president. GR of most companies is aimed at counteracting the rigid regulation of the industry that is carried out by the government. The brewing industry is a good example. Important is the fact that the main GR-strategies are aimed at the federal government. Business in Russia pays less attention to building long-term GR with regional authorities. This is due to the instability of political relations in regions where all processes are tied to the personalities of the head or governor.

Despite the fact that the brewing industry fulfills its tax obligations to the budgets of Russian regions, the government constantly introduces new regulatory acts. This reduces not only the production of beer, but also workplace and incomes of related industries. It is supposed, that thus the government realizes the program on struggle against an alcoholization of the population. The experience of other countries shows that people should be transferred from strong alcoholic beverages to weak ones. In Russia pure alcohol in beer costs more than pure alcohol in vodka.

From an interview with representatives of three international brewing companies - Baltika (Carlsberg), Heineken, AB InBev Efes Group - we learned in more detail about the current GR strategy of the industry and its tools, the direction of development and problems. The most relevant issue for today is the issue of separate regulation. The Union of Russian Brewers, brewing companies and representatives of the Higher School of Economics have already developed a bill that includes separate regulation for different alcoholic beverages - beer, strong alcohol, wine.

Thus, the main conclusions of the work are as follows:

· Transnational breweries implement a fairly open GR. Media publishes news about GR technologies in the brewing industry; company employees are open for interview.

· Brewing companies give the state only a single industry position. Large companies - Baltika (Carlsberg), Heineken, AB InBev Efes Group - are 80% of breweries in Russia. The state only considers the general industry position.

· The interests of transnational breweries at the federal level are realized by the Union of Russian Brewers.

· Representatives of the brewing industry develop separate regulation. This will help solve a lot of problems that arose after joining beer to strong alcohol in 2011.

· The main tools of GR brewing industry are round tables and meetings within the framework of industry and interbranch forums, as well as written appeals to the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and the authorities.

· In 2017 transnational brewing companies successfully conducted GR: excises remained almost at the level of 2016, regulatory acts were not adopted. The success of the GR brewing industry is the adoption of an amendment that permits the export of beer in plastic bottles over 1,5 liters.

The hypothesis of the work was confirmed. Transnational brewing companies conduct open GR-activity. We collected a lot of information about GR companies from the media, analytical publications. Representatives of the companies were open for interviews. While a representative of the Union of Russian Brewers refused to comment on the GR branch.

Transnational brewing companies build GR activities, using the accumulated world experience. GR-strategy of multinational companies is developed on the basis of a global strategy taking into account the Russian characteristics and it is aimed at neutralizing the rigid regulation of the industry. In addition, industry representatives are trying to participate in politics, making various proposals, which are then voiced by the Union on the sidelines of the government. Representatives of multinational companies believe that the GR strategy of the industry is being implemented quite successfully and it is achieving its goals. In 2016-2017 the brewers managed to stop the spontaneous growth of excises, to delay the introduction of licensing and to build a successful dialogue with the authorities

The work has scientific and practical relevance and novelty, and the problems have broad perspectives for continuing the study. Practical relevance lies in the fact that other industries can use the experience of brewing to build GR. As for representatives of the brewing industry, they can use this work to look at their activities "from the outside."

The work opens the field for further study. For example, researches can make a comparative analysis of GR of two or three industries in Russia. Another variant of the study is a comparison of the GR brewing industries in Russia and other countries, due to which the characteristic features of GR for specific political systems will be determined.



Bibliography

Literature

1. Assembly U.N.G. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. : United Nations Publications, 2008. 48 с.

2. Baumgartner F., Berry J., Hojnacki M., Kimball D., Leech B. Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago, 2009.

3. Bauer T. Responsible Lobbying: Conceptual Foundations // Responsible Lobbying. : Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, 2017. С. 85-122.

4. Bentley A. F. The process of government: A study of social pressures. - Routledge, 2017.

5. Birnbaum J. The Lobbyists. New York, 1993; DeKiefer D. The Citizen's Guide to Lobbying Congress. Chicago, 2007.

6. Borgatti S. P. et al. Network analysis in the social sciences //science. 2009. Т. 323. №. 5916. P. 892-895.

7. Cawson A. Corporatism and political theory. - Blackwell, 1986.

8. Campos N.F., Giovannoni F. Lobbying, corruption and political influence // Public Choice. 2007. Т. 131. № 1-2. С. 1-21.

9. Dahl R. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971.

10. Dahl R. Who Governs: Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven, 1961.

11. Dahl R., Lindblom Ch. Politics, Economics and Welfare. New York: Harper, 1976. P. 34.

12. Denisov D. Business lobbying and government relations in Russia: The need for new principles //Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. Fellowship paper. 2010. Т. 27. P.2-3, 12-17.

13. Fraenkel E. Deutschland und die westlichen Demokratien. Frankf. / M., 1991.

14. Freeman R. E., Wicks A. C., Parmar B. Stakeholder theory and “the corporate objective revisited” //Organization science. - 2004. - Т. 15. - №. 3. - С. 364-369.

15. Frye T. Capture or exchange? Business lobbying in Russia //Europe-Asia Studies. 2002. Т. 54. №. 7. P. 1017-1036.

16. Grosse R. International Business and Government Relations in the 21st Century. Cambridge 2005

17. Galbraith J. K. The new industrial society. New York: Signet., 1967.

18. Gel'man V., Tarusina I. Studies of political elites in Russia: issues and alternatives //Communist and Post-Communist Studies. 2000. Т. 33. №. 3. P. 311-329.

19. Grant Thomas. Lobbying, Government Relations, and Campaign Finance Worldwide. Oxford., 2006.

20. Georgiou G. Corporate lobbying on accounting standards: Methods, timing and perceived effectiveness //Abacus. - 2004. - Т. 40. - №. 2. - С.219-237.

21. Govorun A., Marques I., Pyle W. The political roots of intermediated lobbying: evidence from Russian enterprises and business associations //Business and Politics. - 2016. - Т. 18. - №. 4. - С. 395-433.

22. Hall P. A. Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. - Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2001.

23. Heywood A. Politics. New York: Palgrave, 2002. Vol.2. .Р. 453.

24. Hillman A. J., Keim G. D. Shareholder value, stakeholder management, and social issues: What's the bottom line? //Strategic management journal. - 2001. - С. 125-139.

25. Hojnacki M., Kimball D. Organized Interests and the Decision of Whom to Lobby in Congress // American Political Science Review. Vol. 92. 1998. № 4. P. 775-790;

26. Iwasaki I. Evolution of the government-business relationship and economic performance in the former soviet states-order state, rescue state, punish state //Economics of Planning. - 2003. - Т. 36. - №. 3. - С. 223-257.

27. Korbonski A. The decline and rise of pluralism in East Central Europe, 1949-1989, or how not to see the forest for the trees //Communist and Post-Communist Studies. - 1993. - Т. 26. - №. 4. - С. 432-

28. Klein W. Business Associations: Agency, Partnerships, Llcs, and Corporations, 2017 Statutes and Rules. : West Academic, 2017. 426 с.

29. Lane J. E., Ersson S. O. The new institutional politics: Performance and outcomes. - Psychology Press, 2000. С.247-273.

30. Lembruch J. Neo-Corporatism in comparative perspective //Pattterns of Corporatist Policy-making. London: Sage. 1982.

31. Libman A. Government-Business Relations and Catching Up Reforms in the CIS //The European Journal of Comparative Economics. 2006. Т. 3. №. 2. P. 263-288.

32. Lindblom C. E. Politics and markets. 1982.

33. Lobbying.ru | Слово из словаря [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.lobbying.ru/dictionary_word.php?id=42 (дата обращения: 21.05.2018).

34. Mack С. S. Business, Politics, and the Practice of Government Relations. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1997.

35. March J. G., Olsen J. P. The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life //American political science review. - 1983. - Т. 78. - №. 3. - С. 734-749.

36. Milbrath L. The Washington Lobbyists. Chicago, 1976.

37. Mulcahy S., Transparency International. Lobbying in Europe: hidden influence, privileged access., 2015.

38. Olson M. The logic of collective action. Harvard University Press, 2009. Т. 124.

39. Olsen M. E. Participatory pluralism //Chicago: Nelson-Hall. 1982.

40. Parsons T. On the concept of political power //Proceedings of the American philosophical society.1963. Т.107. №. 3. P. 262.

41. Peregudov S. The Oligarchical Model of Russian Corporatism //Contemporary Russian Politics. 2001. P. 259-268.

42. Schmitter P. C., Streeck W. The organization of business interests: Studying the associative action of business in advanced industrial societies. MPIfG discussion paper, 1999. №. 99/1. Р. 58-65.

43. Schimitter P., Lembruch G. Trends towards corporatist intermediation //Trends Toward Corporatist Intermediation. 1979.

44. Scott J. Social network analysis. Sage, 2017.

45. Truman D. B. The governmental process: political interests and public opinion. - A. Knopf, 1951.

46. Yakovlev A. The evolution of business - state interaction in Russia: From state capture to business capture? // Europe-Asia Studies. 2006. Т. 58. № 7. С. 1038-1041. (весь 1033-1056)

47. Wasserman S., Faust K. Social network analysis: Methods and applications. - Cambridge university press, 1994. Т. 8.

48. Ашин Г. К. Элитизм и демократия //Общественные науки и современность. - 1996. - №. 5. - С. 59-70.

49. Гайнутдинов Р. И. Модели взаимодействия бизнеса и государства в глобализирующемся мире: сравнительный анализ (Россия, Санкт-Петербург) //Проблемы современной экономики. - 2006. - №. 1-2. - С.121-124.

50. Гаман-Голутвина О. В. Политические элиты России: Вехи исторической эволюции. М., 2006.

51. Гельман В., Бычкова О. Экономические акторы и локальные режимы в крупных городах России //Неприкосновенный запас. - 2010. - №. 2. - С. 70.

52. GR и лоббизм: взаимодействие бизнеса и органов власти / под ред. В.А. Ачкасовой, И.Е. Минтусова, О.Г. Филатовой. М.: Издательство Юрайт, 2015.

53. Золотарева Е. В. Группы интересов в политике //Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Cерия: Политология. 1999. №. 1. С. 63-75.

54. Зудин А.Ю., Неокорпоративизм в России? (Государство и бизнес при Владимире Путине) // Pro et Contra._2001. T. 6. № 4

55. Зудин А. Ю. Олигархия как политическая проблема российского посткоммунизма //Общественные науки и современность. 1999. №. 1. С. 45-65.

56. Игошин И.Н. Институциональные системы и их искажения // Вестник Московского Университета. - Сер. 12, Политические науки. - 2003. - № 5. - С. 39-51.

57. Кинякин А. А., Матвеенков Д. О. Government relations как форма общественно-политической и бизнес коммуникации: к определению понятий // Вестник Российского университета дружбы народов. Серия: Политология. -- № 1. -- 2009.

58. Коробейникова Н.Ю. GR-коммуникации в условиях развития современного российского бизнеса (на примере компаний “Вымпелком” и “Связьинвест”) // Бизнес.Общество.Власть. 2010. № 3. С. 52-69.

59. Крыштановская О. В. Анатомия российской элиты. М., 2005.

60. Лапина Н.Ю. Модели взаимодействия бизнеса и власти в российских регионах и типы предпринимательского делового поведения // Российское предпринимательство: Стратегия, власть, менеджмент. М.: Институт социологии РАН, 2000. С. 45-55.

61. Лапина Н. Ю., Чирикова А. Е. Региональные элиты в РФ: модели поведения и политические ориентации. - ИНИОН РАН, 1999.

62. Любимов А. П. Лоббизм как конституционно-правовой институт. М., 1998.

63. Любимов А. П. История лоббизма в России. - Фонд “Либеральная миссия”, 2005.

64. Нельсон Л., Кузес И. Группы интересов и политический срез российских экономических реформ // Полис. 1995. № 6. С. 81-86.

65. Николаев А. В. Антиалкогольные кампании XX века в России //Вопросы истории. 2008. №. 11. С. 67-79.

66. Павроз А. В. Законодательное утверждение лоббизма в России в контексте глобальной конкуренции юрисдикций //Государственная служба. - 2011. - №. 3. - С. 15-1.

67. Павроз А. В. Эффективность плюралистической модели формирования политики: классическое обоснование и современные интерпретации //Вестник Московского университета. Серия 12: Политические науки. 2015. №. 4. С. 8.

68. Павроз А. В. Этические принципы лоббизма в условиях современной демократии //Политическая экспертиза: ПОЛИТЭКС. - 2015. - Т. 11. - №. 2. - С. 87-98.

69. Павроз А. В. Government Relations как институт социально-политического взаимодействия //Политическая экспертиза: ПОЛИТЭКС. - 2005. - №. 2. - С. 242-244.

70. Перегудов С. П. Ренессанс корпоративизма? //Куда идет Россия. 1998. P. 130-139.

71. Перегудов С. П. Политическое представительство интересов: опыт Запада и проблемы России //Полис. Политические исследования. - 1993. - №. 4. - С. 115-124.

72. Перегудов С. П., Лапина Н. Ю. Семененко И. С. Группы интересов и российское государство. М., 1999.

73. Перегудов С. П. Организованные интересы и государство: смена парадигм // Полис. 1994. №2. С. 76-87.

74. Радаев В.В. Социология рынков: к формированию нового направления. - М.: ГУ ВШЭ, 2003. - С. 135.

75. Радаев В. В., Котельникова З. В. Изменение структуры потребления алкоголя в контексте государственной алкогольной политики в России //Экономическая политика. 2016. Т. 11. №. 5. С. 2.

76. Рейтинг лучших GR-специалистов России. Выпуск 3 / 2011 [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.gr.ru/content/56 (дата обращения: 22.03.2018)

77. Рыбаков А.В. Трансформация политических институтов // Власть. - 2003. - № 5. - С. 49-54.

78. Рыбаков А.В. Общественные эффекты институционализации политико-властных отношений // Социально- гуманитарные знания: научно-образовательное издание. - 03/2004 - № 2. - С.146-156.

79. Сморгунов Л. В., Шерстобитов А. С. Политические сети: Теория и методы анализа //М.: Аспект Пресс. - 2014.320 с.

80. Стратегии региональных элит: экономика, модели власти, политический выбор / Н. Лапина, А. Чирикова; Рос. акад. наук. Ин-т науч. информации по обществ. наукам. - М., 2000. - 198 с.

81. Такала И. Веселие Руси: история алкогольной проблемы в России. Журнал Нева, 2002. С.32-84.

82. Толстых П. А. Практика лоббизма в Государственной Думе Федерального Собрания Российской Федерации. М., 2006.

83. Толстых П. А. Субъектный статус лоббизма и Government Relations //Исторические, философские, политические и юридические науки, культурология и искусствоведение. Вопросы теории и практики. 2012. №. 4-2. С. 195-200.

84. Тульчинский Г. Л. Корпоративная социальная ответственность: технологии и оценка эффективности //М.: Юрайт. - 2014. - Т. 338

85. Туровский Р.Ф. Власть и бизнес в регионах России: современные процессы обновления региональной элиты // Региональная элита в современной России. М., 2005. С. 143-178.

86. Урбан М. Социальные отношения и политические практики в посткоммунистической России // Полис. Политические исследования. 2002. № 4. С. 66-85.

87. Формирование системы цивилизованного лоббизма в России: GR и проблемы эффективности взаимодействия общества и власти / Под ред. В.И. Быкова, Л.Н. Галенской, Л.В. Сморгунова. СПб., 2006.

88. Шмиттер Ф. Неокорпоратизм //Полис. Политические исследования. - 1997. - №. 2. - С. 14-22.

89. Яковлев А.А., Бизнес-ассоциации в России: внутренняя структура, эволюция отношений с государством, роль в модернизации экономики / Под ред/ А.А. Яковлева. Сер. “Научные доклады: независимый экономический анализ”/ № 2.; М.:: МОНФ; Автономная некоммерческая организация “Проекты для будущего: научные и образовательные технологии”, 2010, 190 с.

90. Яковлев А.А. Власть, бизнес и движущие силы экономического развития России: до и после “дела Юкоса” // Общественные науки и современность. - 2005. - № 1 .

91. А.Яковлев, А.Зудин, В.Голикова, А.Говорун, Е.Астафьева, Г.Гарифуллина. Бизнес-ассоциации в России: внутренняя структура, эволюция отношений с государством, роль в модернизации экономики. // Москва, МОНФ, 2010, 190 с.

92. Ясин Е. Бремя государства и экономическая политика //Вопросы экономики. - 2002. - №. 11. - С.30.

Electronic resources

1. Brewers Association Purpose [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.brewersassociation.org/brewers-association/purpose/ (date of the application: 26.04.2018).

2. Brewers Association [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.craftbeer.com/brewers-association (date of the application: 26.04.2018).

3. Code of Conduct // Epaca. https://epaca.org/code-of-conduct/

4. Corporate Social Responsibility Practices and Environmentally Responsible Behavior: The Case of The United Nations Global Compact | SpringerLink [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-006-9265-4 (дата обращения: 17.03.2018).

5. Convention against Corruption [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/ (дата обращения: 17.03.2018).

6. EFES [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.efesrussia.ru/company/history.html (дата обращения: 23.03.2018).

7. Gerlach J. Text - H.R.494 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Small BREW Act [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/494/text (date of the application: 19.05.2018); Excise duty rates - Taxation and Customs Union - European Commission [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/excise-duties-alcohol-tobacco-energy/excise-duties-alcohol/excise-duty-rates_en (date of the application: 19.05.2018).

8. It's Final: AB InBev Closes On Deal To Buy SABMiller [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.forbes.com/sites/taranurin/2016/10/10/its-final-ab-inbev-closes-on-deal-to-buy-sabmiller/#733ed61e432c (date of the application: 26.04.2018).

9. IBD Information Brochure 2018 [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.ibd.org.uk/documents/ibd-information-brochure/ (date of the application: 26.04.2018).

10. Lobbying: influencing decision making with transparency and integrity. OECD. http://www.oecd.org/cleangovbiz/toolkit/50101671.pdf

11. Lobbying Survey | [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://lobbyingsurvey.burson-marsteller.com (дата обращения: 17.03.2018).

12. Mulcahy S., Transparency International. Lobbying in Europe: hidden influence, privileged access. , 2015. http://transparency.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Lobbying_web.pdf

13. RESPONSIBLE LOBBYING / Transparency International. 2015. https://transparency.ie/sites/default/files/15.12_responsible_lobbying_guide.pdf

14. Research - Corruption Q&As - Code of ethics for companies: Good practices and resources [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/answer/code_of_ethics_for_companies_good_practices_and_resources (дата обращения: 17.03.2018).

15. SABMiller AB InBev would dominate the beer market - Business Insider [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.businessinsider.com/sabmiller-ab-inbev-would-dominate-the-beer-market-2015-9 (date of the application: 19.05.2018).

16. Siebel Institute: Home [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.siebelinstitute.com/ (date of the application: 26.04.2018).

17. Standards - AccountAbility [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.accountability.org/standards/ (дата обращения: 17.03.2018).

18. Stakeholder Engagement?” SustainAbility [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://sustainability.com/our-work/reports/stakeholder-engagement/ (дата обращения: 17.03.2018).

19. Traditional beer companies are copying craft brewers, but the wine industry isn't interested - Business Insider [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.businessinsider.com/traditional-beer-companies-are-copying-craft-brewers-but-the-wine-industry-isnt-interested-2015-8 (дата обращения: 19.05.2018).

20. 26 U.S. Code Chapter 51 - DISTILLED SPIRITS, WINES, AND BEER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/subtitle-E/chapter-51 (date of the application: 20.05.2018).

21. Welcome to The Brewers of Europe [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.brewersofeurope.org/site/about-us/index.php (date of the application: 26.04.2018).

22. Александр Хлопонин провел рабочую встречу с представителями Союза российских пивоваров [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://profibeer.ru/law/15690/ (дата обращения: 16.11.2017).

23. Анна Дупан: “Закон получается более разумным, когда учитываются и социальные, и экономические эффекты” [Электронный ресурс]: Дайджест союза российских пивоваров №22, 2017. С.4-5. URL: http://www.beerunion.ru/doc/%D0%A1%D0%A0%D0%9F_%E2%84%9622_%D0%B8%D1%8E%D0%BD%D1%8C_2017.pdf (дата обращения: 17.05.2018).

24. AB InBev и Efes завершили объединение бизнеса в РФ и на Украине [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.interfax.ru/business/606116 (дата обращения: 23.04.2018).

25. Безалкогольное будущее [Электронный ресурс]: Дайджест союза российских пивоваров № 20, 2016. С.6-7. URL: http://www.beerunion.ru/doc/%D0%A1%D0%A0%D0%9F_%E2%84%9620_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B1%D1%80%D1%8C-2016.pdf (дата обращения: 18.03.2018).

26. Ведомости. Чистая прибыль Anheuser-Busch InBev выросла на 23% [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.vedomosti.ru/business/articles/2013/02/27/chistaya_pribyl_anheuserbusch_inbev_vyrosla_na_23 (дата обращения: 15.05.2018).

27. Ведомости. Российскому рынку пива поможет чемпионат мира по футболу [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.vedomosti.ru/business/articles/2018/01/11/747421-rinku-piva-pomozhet-futbolu (дата обращения: 26.04.2018).

28. Вехи пути [Электронный ресурс]: Дайджест союза российских пивоваров №13,2014. С.2-3. URL: http://www.beerunion.ru/press_office/bulletin_of_the_brewer/%E2%84%9613-2014.pdf (дата обращения: 17.03.2018).

29. Власти выступили с несколькими инициативами по либерализации регулирования [Электронный ресурс]: Дайджест союза российских пивоваров № 18, 2016. С.5. URL: http://www.beerunion.ru/press_office/bulletin_of_the_brewer/beerunion-18-2016.pdf (дата обращения: 13.02.2018).

30. Государство отказывается обучать специалистов индустрии [Электронный ресурс]: Дайджест союза российских пивоваров №13,2014. URL: http://www.beerunion.ru/press_office/bulletin_of_the_brewer/%E2%84%9613-2014.pdf (дата обращения: 20.05.2018). Власть и олигархи -- Российская газета [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://rg.ru/2003/11/27/politologi.html (дата обращения: 01.04.2018).

31. Главная - CraftDepot [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://craftdepot.ru/ (дата обращения: 23.05.2018).

32. Госсорткомиссия и Союз российских пивоваров подписали Соглашение о взаимодействии - САН ИнБев - публикация [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://publishernews.ru/PressRelease/PressReleaseShow.asp?id=524138 (дата обращения: 12.03.2018).

33. “Деловой журнал” Ретроспектива законодательных инициатив в алкогольной отрасли за 2016-2017 гг.: изменения и последствия [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://blog.dp.ru/post/10843/ (дата обращения: 12.02.2018).

34. Дифференцированный подход к регулированию пивоварения отвечает стратегическим целям алкогольной политики [Электронный ресурс]: Дайджест союза российских пивоваров № 20, 2016. С.8. URL: http://www.beerunion.ru/doc/%D0%A1%D0%A0%D0%9F_%E2%84%9620_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B1%D1%80%D1%8C-2016.pdf (дата обращения: 19.01.2018).

35. Евразийский пивоваренный форум: итоги [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://profibeer.ru/beer/6950/ (дата обращения: 12.11.2017).

36. Их не видно, но они решают вопросы: Как работают российские лоббисты, джиарщики и “решалы” -- посредники между бизнесом и государством. Репортаж Таисии Бекбулатовой [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://meduza.io/feature/2017/12/21/ih-ne-vidno-no-oni-reshayut-voprosy (дата обращения: 18.03.2018).

37. История пивоваренной компании “Балтика” [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://corporate.baltika.ru/m/41/the_history_of_baltika_breweries.html (дата обращения: 20.04.2018).

38. Личный сайт О.Г. Румянцева [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://rumiantsev.ru/a877/ (дата обращения: 17.03.2018).

39. Лучшие лоббисты России - третий квартал 2017 года / Экономика / Независимая газета [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.ng.ru/economics/2017-11-09/5_7111_lobby.html?id_user=Y (дата обращения: 01.04.2018).

40. Международный форум “ПИВО” в Сочи -- Союз российских пивоваров [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.beerunion.ru/press_office/news/22318/ (дата обращения: 03.10.2017).

41. На Гайдаровском форуме обсудили регулирование рынка алкогольной продукции [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://gaidarforum.ru/news/na-gaydarovskom-forume-obsudili-regulirovanie-rynka-alkogolnoy-produktsii/ (дата обращения: 14.01.2018).

42. Национальный Союз Производителей Пива и Напитков [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.unionbeer.ru/ (дата обращения: 20.05.2018).

43. Несмотря на жаркое лето, производство пива в России падает [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://expert.ru/2012/08/9/menshe-piva-bolshe-vodki/ (дата обращения: 03.11.2017).

44. Особенности национального пивоварения [Электронный ресурс]: Дайджест Союза Российских пивоваров №11, 2014. URL: http://www.beerunion.ru/Vestnik/vestnik-1-5-2014.pdf (дата обращения: 17.03.2018).

45. Объединение Участников Пиво-безалкогольного Рынка | OUPR.RU [Электронный ресурс]. URL: /obedinenie-uchastnikov-pivo-bezalkogolnogo-rynka (дата обращения: 11.05.2018).

46. Отрасли нужна законодательная передышка [Электронный ресурс]: Дайджест союза российских пивоваров №17, 2015. С.9. URL: http://www.beerunion.ru/press_office/bulletin_of_the_brewer/beerunion-17-2015.pdf (дата обращения: 17.03.2018).

47. Перезагрузка крепкого алкоголя?” www.alcoexpert.ru - Ваш личный аналитик! Информационно-аналитический портал алкогольного рынка [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.alcoexpert.ru/itnews/26868-perezagruzka-krepkogo-alkogolya.html (дата обращения: 14.10.2017).

48. Пиво -- это продукт в упаковке [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/900424 (дата обращения: 2.02.2018).

49. Последствия чрезмерного регулирования [Электронный ресурс]: Дайджест союза российских пивоваров №17, 2015. С.3. URL: http://www.beerunion.ru/press_office/bulletin_of_the_brewer/beerunion-17-2015.pdf (дата обращения: 20.04.2018).

50. Противоборье [Электронный ресурс]: Коммерсантъ business guide №24, 2011. С.4. URL: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/1642998 (дата обращения: 27.10.2017)

51. ПМЭФ-2016: президент “САН ИнБев” и А.Г. Хлопонин обсудили вопросы пивоваренной отрасли -- Союз российских пивоваров [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.beerunion.ru/press_office/news/21568/ (дата обращения: 16.11.2017).

52. Раздельное регулирование поможет бизнесу, государству и обществу [Электронный ресурс]: Дайджест союза российских пивоваров №21, 2017. С.4-5. URL: http://www.beerunion.ru/doc/%D0%A1%D0%A0%D0%9F_%E2%84%9621_%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C_2017.pdf (дата обращения: 17.05.2018).

53. Региональные модели взаимодействия между деловыми и властными элитами | Политком.РУ [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://politcom.ru/8474.html (дата обращения: 03.04.2018).

54. Рискованные ставки [Электронный ресурс]: Дайджест союза российских пивоваров № 20, 2016. С.4-5. URL: http://www.beerunion.ru/doc/%D0%A1%D0%A0%D0%9F_%E2%84%9620_%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%B1%D1%80%D1%8C-2016.pdf (дата обращения: 18.03.2018).

55. Союз российских пивоваров [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.beerunion.ru/ (дата обращения: 26.04.2018).

56. Союз российских пивоваров подписал соглашение о сотрудничестве с Национальным институтом технического регулирования -- Союз российских пивоваров [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://beerunion.ru/press_office/news/18090/ (дата обращения: 12.04.2018).

57. Совфед одобрил повышение акцизов на алкоголь, табак и топливо [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://russian.rt.com/business/news/336950-sovfed-akciz-alkogol-tabak (дата обращения: 14.09.2017).

58. Свет и тени выставки “Пиво-2013” [Электронный ресурс]: Мир пива 2013. С.118. URL: http://www.brauweltinternational.com/pdf/BRAUWELT_Russian/BRAUWELT_MirPiva_03_2013.pdf (дата обращения: 07.04.2018).

59. ТР ЕАЭС О безопасности алкогольной продукции [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.novotest.ru/information/tech_reglament/doc21486.php (дата обращения: 21.04.2018).

60. Участники АлкоКонгресса-2017 сошлись во мнении о необходимости модернизации ФЗ-171 -- Союз российских пивоваров [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.beerunion.ru/press_office/news/22206/ (дата обращения: 11.04.2018).

61. Федеральная служба по регулированию алкогольного рынка?: Концепция государственной политики [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.fsrar.ru/policy_of_sobriety/koncepcia (дата обращения: 21.05.2018).

62. Федеральный закон “О государственном регулировании производства и оборота этилового спирта, алкогольной и спиртосодержащей продукции и об ограничении потребления (распития) алкогольной продукции” от 22.11.1995 N 171-ФЗ (последняя редакция) / КонсультантПлюс [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_8368/ (дата обращения: 16.01.2018).

63. Heineken объединит российские пивоваренные заводы к 2010г. и вложит в их развитие в 2008г. 115 млн евро.?:: Общество?:: РБК [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.rbc.ru/rbcfreenews/20080403175459.shtml (дата обращения: 10.05.2018).

64. Раздельное регулирование поможет бизнесу, государству и обществу [Электронный ресурс]: Дайджест союза российских пивоваров №21, 2017. С.4-5. URL: http://www.beerunion.ru/doc/%D0%A1%D0%A0%D0%9F_%E2%84%9621_%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C_2017.pdf (дата обращения: 17.05.2018)

65. Пиво может перестать считаться алкоголем по требованию Белоруссии ( БЕЛАРУСЬ?” / События / ) [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.customsunion.ru/infoprint/4951.html (дата обращения: 21.05.2018).

66. О государственном регулировании производства и оборота этилового спирта и алкогольной продукции - ИПС “?ділет” [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://adilet.zan.kz/rus/docs/Z990000429_ (дата обращения: 19.05.2018).

67. Тень на отрасль [Электронный ресурс]: Дайджест союза российских пивоваров №14,2014. С.4-5. URL: http://www.beerunion.ru/press_office/bulletin_of_the_brewer/%E2%84%9614-2014.pdf (дата обращения: 17.03.2018).

68. Законопроект о лицензировании производства пива и пивных напитков Госдума может рассмотреть в апреле [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://profibeer.ru/beer/3418/ (дата обращения: 18.05.2018).

69. Союз российских пивоваров сообщил свою позицию по лицензированию [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://profibeer.ru/law/31802/ (дата обращения: 14.05.2018).

70. Правительство и пивовары до мая обсудят лицензирование в отрасли - Бизнес - Коммерсантъ [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3554788 (дата обращения: 18.05.2018).

71. Минфин должен до 26 апреля дать предложения по лицензии и маркировке пива [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://profibeer.ru/law/31625/ (дата обращения: 12.05.2018).

72. Пиво не будет маркироваться [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://profibeer.ru/law/32203/ (дата обращения: 12.03.2018).

73. НСПП предложил критерии включения в реестр производителей [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://profibeer.ru/law/32030/ (дата обращения: 23.01.2018).

74. Правительство подтвердило появление реестра пивоварен [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://profibeer.ru/law/32160/ (дата обращения: 23.02.2018).

75. Пивовары обвинили Дерипаску в попытке “убийства” отрасли [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://www.rbc.ru/business/13/04/2016/570e50459a79479c16984f7a (дата обращения: 10.01.2018).

76. Размер имеет значение [Электронный ресурс]: Дайджест союза российских пивоваров №13, 2014. С.8-9. URL: http://www.beerunion.ru/press_office/bulletin_of_the_brewer/%E2%84%9613-2014.pdf (дата обращения: 17.04.2018).

77. Достучаться до небес [Электронный ресурс]: Дайджест союза российских пивоваров №12, 2014. С.3. URL: http://www.beerunion.ru/Vestnik/vestnik-12-06-2014.pdf (дата обращения: 17.04.2018).

78. Ведомости. Запрет на использование пластиковой тары в производстве пива может стоить отрасли 1,5 млрд рублей [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://www.vedomosti.ru/business/articles/2015/09/03/607306-zapret-ispolzovanie-plastikovoi-tari-proizvodstve-piva-mozhet-stoit-otrasli-15-mlrd-rublei (дата обращения: 10.05.2018).

79. ФАС считает полезным внедрение принципов антимонопольного комплаенса [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://regnum.ru/news/economy/1976107.html (дата обращения: 24.02.2018).

^80. Пивовары начали отказываться от пластиковых бутылок [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://top.rbc.ru/business/19/08/2015/55d46ae89a79472bced59c9d (дата обращения: 12.03.2018).

81. Вступает в силу запрет на продажу пива в ПЭТ-таре объемом более 1,5 литра [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://ria.ru/society/20170701/1497642194.html (дата обращения: 12.05.2018).

82. В Госдуму внесли законопроект о разрешении производства на экспорт пива в ПЭТ свыше 1,5 л [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://profibeer.ru/law/27182/ (дата обращения: 10.05.2018).

...