slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
RBEC survey results Working with the private sector Business focal point workshop Bratislava, 24 October PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
RBEC survey results Working with the private sector Business focal point workshop Bratislava, 24 October

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 8

RBEC survey results Working with the private sector Business focal point workshop Bratislava, 24 October - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 209 Views
  • Uploaded on

RBEC survey results Working with the private sector Business focal point workshop Bratislava, 24 October.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'RBEC survey results Working with the private sector Business focal point workshop Bratislava, 24 October' - johana


Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1
RBEC survey results

Working with the private sector

Business focal point workshop

Bratislava, 24 October

introduction

Although practically all COs hold the same belief regarding the current level of cooperation with the private sector, namely, that progress is being made but more involvement would be positive, there are significant disparities between the activities of COs, both in terms of current projects/initiatives, and in terms of future plans

Amount of current vs planned activity – by country; NB. indicative only, does not encompass scale of each activity

INTRODUCTION

Opinion on degree of activity in private sector collaboration

100% = 21

Number of planned projects/ initiatives with private sector

We are definitely not doing enough

We are working well, this is sufficient for now

“Middle ground”

Very active COs

Not ambitious enough?

We are making some progress but like to see higher degree of involvement

Relatively low level of activity

Number of current projects/ initiatives with private sector

NB. 2 COs each

main obstacles

Companies not focused on public benefits

  • Lack of private sector orientation in CO
  • Unfavourable environment for private sector development
  • Lack of clarity on UNDP roles
  • Ad-hoc basis up to now, currently defining strategy (Similar comments from 3 different COs)
  • Private sector very keen, need partnership strategy
  • Lack of staff capacity
MAIN OBSTACLES

Responses by regional sub-groups*

Overall responses

Central Europe

Central Asia

Balkans

Private sector in our country too weak

11

6

4

1

Private sector not interested

3

2

1

6

We do not know how to approach private sector

1

4

2

1

Not enough support from RBEC/DBP

2

1

0

3

We see no benefit

0

0

0

0

Other

5

13

5

3

Wide-spread belief that private sector too weak throughout region for cooperation with UNDP – to what extent does this result from in-depth analysis?

  • Lack of staff capacity and knowledge (e.g. identification of win-win proposals)
  • Need awareness-raising efforts – CSR, benefits for private sector

* Sub-groups are defined as follows: a) Central Asia – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan; b) Balkans – Albania, Bosnia i Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro; c) Central Europe – Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Turkey, Ukraine (nb. Not all participants responded to survey)

priority actions

Involving private sector in on-going initiatives, to recognize their wider role in society

  • Support CO with real private sector experience, especially in defining value proposition for PS
  • Increase CO capacity to focus on PS partnerships

Responses by regional sub-groups*

Overall responses

PRIORITY ACTIONS

More CO exchange of experiences

Central Europe

Central Asia

Balkans

6

5

14

Better defined potential UNDP roles

3

13

7

2

Central/ regional database

4

9

3

3

3

More RBEC support

6

1

3

2

More UNDP instruments/ guidelines

5

2

1

2

4

0

“Roving expert” role

0

4

More regional/ RBEC workshops

1

4

1

2

1

3

0

2

More DBP support

More CO autonomy

0

2

1

1

Other

1

3

0

2

Definite differences between sub-groups in desired priority actions – overall all agree that more CO exchange of experiences is critical, but Central Asia focuses also on defining potential roles for UNDP, while Balkans very interested in “roving expert”

* Sub-groups are defined as follows: a) Central Asia – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan; b) Balkans – Albania, Bosnia i Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro; c) Central Europe – Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Turkey, Ukraine (nb. Not all participants responded to survey)

types of current projects

Again, definite differences can be observed amongst sub-regions in terms of types of current engagements with the private sector – in Central Asia, SME development and policy advice activities occupy the main positions, whilst in the Balkans, there is a variety of roles played by companies. In Central Europe, SME development is an important type of activity, with projects where private companies play a variety of (such as TA) in the first place

TYPES OF CURRENT PROJECTS

Types of current projects overall, by number, %

Types of current projects by sub-regions*, by number, %

100% = 75

100% =

Philanthropic activities

24

37

24

Variety of roles played by companies (e.g. TA)

Philanthropic activities

GC promotion and advocacy

GC advocacy

Policy advice

Variety of roles played by companies

Policy advice on business enabling environment

Supporting SME development

Supporting SME development

Central Asia

Balkans

Central Europe

* Sub-groups are defined as follows: a) Central Asia – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan; b) Balkans – Albania, Bosnia i Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro; c) Central Europe – Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Turkey, Ukraine (nb. Not all participants responded to survey)

examples of current projects
EXAMPLES OF CURRENT PROJECTS

Sub-region

Category

Specific projects

Policy advice

Support to Azerbaijan Investment Promotion and Advisory Foundation

1) Introducing TQM and ISO Standards to Georgian export sector, with association of exporters; 2) Transfer of technology for water-heating solar panels in Uzbekistan – with Uzbek and Danish companies

Variety of company roles (e.g. TA)

Central Asia

1) Regional GC seminar on role of business in promoting growth and stability, held in Kazakhstan; 2) Support for programme development in Moldova, with support from e.g. Sudzucker, Voxtel, Moldcel

GC promotion and advocacy

1) Funding for event to support mine victims in Albania, participating companies include Western Union, United Bank of Albania; 2) Computer Clubs for Children in Romania, with e.g. Distrigaz Sud, MobiFon CONNEX

Philanthropic activities

Balkans

1) Generating employment in Bulgaria by involving construction companies in Beautiful Bulgaria Programme; 2) Municipal support programme, PPPs in Macedonia

Variety of company roles (e.g. TA)

1) Private sector involvement in drafting strategic documents of Bulgarian e-Government; 2) Private sector consultations on stimulating investment in Macedonia

Policy advice

GC promotion and advocacy

Roundtable on CSR in Romania – with Shell

1) Capacity building of Lithuanian women through networking and ICT, with Microsoft; 2) Grant Fund for Plock in Poland, with PKN Orlen, Levi Strauss; 3) Renovation of penitentiaries in Russia, with several insurance companies, 4) Eastern Anatolia University-SME Partnership Project with Cisco in Turkey

Variety of company roles (e.g. TA)

Central Europe

Supporting SME development

1) Creation of business incubators and rural SME support centre in Belarus; 2) Promoting innovation and employment in Lithuania using SYSLAB methodology

1) Tourism development strategy for specific region in Poland, with support from e.g. Danone, J&J, ABB, Deutsche Bank; 2) Development of CSR index in Russia – with e.g. Lukoil, Aeroflot, Yukos

GC promotion and advocacy

types of planned projects

Most projects that are planned do not envisage involvement of large companies, but are rather focused on SME development, especially in Central Asia

  • GC participation is the second category of initiatives planned for private sector involvement, especially in Balkans
  • In Central Europe, partnerships with local companies providing funding - main category of cooperation planned
TYPES OF PLANNED PROJECTS

Types of planned projects overall and by sub-regions*, by number, %

100% =

53

18

24

11

Partnerships with large companies/MNCs on commercially justified basis

Other

16

17

18

22

Partnerships with large companies/MNCs providing contribution-in-kind

Partnerships with local corporates who provide contribution-in-kind

Partnerships with local companies on commercially justified basis

Partnerships with local companies providing funding

Partnerships with large companies/MNCs who provide funding

Global Compact participation

Projects with SME benefit, no large company involvement

Overall

Central Asia

Balkans

Central Europe

* Sub-groups are defined as follows: a) Central Asia – Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan; b) Balkans – Albania, Bosnia i Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Romania, Serbia and Montenegro; c) Central Europe – Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Turkey, Ukraine (nb. Not all participants responded to survey)

examples of planned projects

Sub-region

EXAMPLES OF PLANNED PROJECTS

Category

Specific projects

Funding

Oilpipe consortium, BP and Statoil to provide funding for range of activities in Azerbaijan (environment, poverty reduction, blood bank)

Further funding hoped for in Kazakhstan leveraging GC network to reach new partners

Central Asia

Further development of business incubators in Uzbekistan

Improving policies and regulatory environment in Uzbekistan

SME benefit

Possible partnerships in support of regional public access centers in Albania – with AMC (Albanian Mobile Communications)

Commercially justified initiatives

Awareness-raising activities in Albania, with e.g. AMC, ABB, Ericsson, TetraPak

GC participation

Balkans

New components added to existing JOBS project in Bulgaria

Establishment of business and technological incubators in Romania

SME benefit

Funding

Development of Access Point Centres in Macedonia with support from Microsoft

Funding for abortion prevention programme in Lithuania – with Schering-Plough OY

Funding for anti-corruption project in Lithuania – with Constructus company

Replication of local sustainable development model in Poland – with PKN Orlen, KGHM, Toyota

Waste management facility in Russia – with support from Lukoil

Building public awareness on hygiene and good nutritional habits in Turkey – with Novartis, Nestle, Unilever

Funding

Central Europe

Commercially justified initiatives