The concept of the socio-environmental and economic system of the Artic zone on the basis of stakeholder approach

The relevance of the study is determined by the need to create sciencebased approaches to the state management of the socio-environmental and economic system of the Arctic zone based the consideration and assessment of the interests of all stakeholders. The state management of the development of the region employing the stakeholder approach will contribute to the sustainable development of the area. Moreover, the duration and quality of communication of all stakeholders increases significantly, which, in its turn contributes to the cooperative interaction to solve social, economic and environmental problems in the area. The main results of the study are the clarification of the concept of the stakeholder approach in the management of the social, environmental and economic system of the Arctic zone; clarification of the feasibility of applying the method of mapping for differentiation and stakeholder management to improve the efficiency of strategic governmental management decisions aimed at the harmonious interaction between man and nature. The scientific significance lies in the expansion of theoretical knowledge about the importance of the stakeholder approach in the state administration of the solution of social, economic and environmental systems. The practical significance lies in the formation of methodological grounds for understanding the gradation of stakeholders and their involvement in the processes of integration of environmental parameter in the socio-economic relations at the level of the Arctic zone.

Sakharova S. M., Golovina T. A., Avdeeva I. L., Parakhina L. V., Polyanin A. V. The concept of the socio-environmental and economic system of the Artic zone on the basis of stakeholder approach. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull. 2022;(10-2):49—61. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.2501 8/0236_1493_2022_102_0_49.

The reported study was funded by RFBR, project number 20—310—90038.

Sakharova S. M.¹, junior researcher, e-mail: sakharovasveta2020@yandex.ru, ORCID ID: 0000-0002-8300-8221;
Golovina T. A.¹, Dr. Sci. (Eng.), Professor, Head of Department, e-mail: golovina_t78@mail.ru, ORCID ID: 0000-0001-9258-4100;
Avdeeva I. L.¹, Cand. Sci. (Economic), Senior Lecturer, e-mail: i-avdeeva-i@yandex.ru, ORCID ID: 0000-0002-4357-7809;
Parakhina L. V.¹, Cand. Sci. (Economic), Senior Lecturer, e-mail: novila@mail.ru, ORCID ID: 0000-0001-6051-9224;
Polyanin A. V.¹, Dr. Sci. (Eng.), Professor, e-mail: polyanin.andrei@yandex.ru, ORCID ID: 0000-0003-1158-6898;
¹ Central Russian Institute of Management, Branch of RANEPA, 302020, Orel, Russia.

Golovina T. A., e-mail: golovina_t78@mail.ru.

1. Aarts, N., Drenthen, M. (2020). Socio-environmental interactions and sustainable development — introduction to a special. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(17), 6967. DOI:10.3390/su12176967.

2. Allen, C., Metternicht, G., Verburg. P, Inacio da C. M.,Sanchez, S. M. (2020). Delivering an enabling environment and multiple benefits for land degradation neutrality: Stakeholder perceptions and progress. Environmental Science and Policy, 114, 09−118. DOI:10.2478/ euco-2019−0035.

3. Belokon, A. I. (2018). The analysis of the significance of the stakeholders of the project. Bulletin of DABA, 2, 239−240.

4. Buslaev, G., Tsvetkov, P., Lavrik, A., et al. (2021). Ensuring the sustainability of arctic industrial facilities under conditions of global climate change. Resources, 21100808642, 10(12), 1−15. DOI: 10.3390/resources10120128.

5. Cherepovitsyn, A. E., Tsvetkov, P. S., Evseeva, O. O. (2021). Critical analysis of methodological approaches to assessing sustainability of arctic oil and gas projects. Journal of Mining Institute, 24113336, 249, 463−478. DOI: 10.31897/PMI.2021.3.15.

6. Das, M., Das, A., Seikh, S., Pandey, R. (2021). Nexus between indigenous ecological knowledge and ecosystem services: a socio-environmental analysis for sustainable ecosystem management. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. DOI: 10.1007/ s11356−021−15605−8.

7. Dmitrieva, D., Cherepovitsyna, A., Stroykov, G., et al. (2022). Strategic sustainability of offshore arctic oil and gas projects: Definition, principles, and conceptual framework. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 21100830140, 10(23), 1−24. DOI: 10.3390/ jmse10010023.

8. Dragicevic, A. Z., Shogren, J. F. (2021). Preservation Value in Socio-Ecological Systems. Ecological Modelling, 443, 09451. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2021.109451.

9. Grill, C. (2021). Involving stakeholders in research priority setting a scoping review. Research Involvement and Engagement, 7(1), 75. DOI: 10.1186/s40900−021−00318−6.

10. Hörisch, J. (2020). Integrating stakeholder theory and sustainability accounting A conceptual synthesis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 275, 124097. DOI:10.1016/j. jclepro.2020.124097.

11. Jiao, J. (2020). Effects of stakeholder pressure, managerial perceptions, and resource availability on sustainable operations adoption. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(8), 3246−3260. DOI:10.1002/bse.2569.

12. Kienko, E. V. (2021). Legal Basis for Cooperation between the People’s Republic of China and the Arctic States in the Development of Arctic Subsoil. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull., 3(1), 199−213. DOI: 10.25018/0236_1493_2021_31_0_199.

13. Knaggård, Å. (2019). Researchers’ approaches to stakeholders: Interaction or transfer of knowledge. Environmental Science and Policy, 97, 25−35. DOI: 10.1016/j. envsci.2019.03.008.

14. Kolesnikova L. A., Kovalchuk T. V. Problems and prospects of environmental safety of mining regions. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull. 2021;(2—1):275–286. [In Russ]. DOI: 10.25018/0236-1493-2021-21-0-275-286.

15. Laur, I., Danilovic, M. (2020). Enabling change within new forms of organisations: an empirical investigation of change patterns and stakeholder influence on core intermediary activities. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 33(6), 1041−1070. DOI: 10.1108/ JOCM-01−2020−0026.

16. Lyubovny, V. Y., Pchelintsev, O. S. (2017). Other Crisis cities in Russia ways and mechanisms of socio-economic rehabilitation and development. Regionologiya, 3, 31.

17. Martínez-Fernández, J. (2021). An integral approach to address socio-ecological systems sustainability and their uncertainties. Science of the Total Environment, 762, 144457. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144457.

18. McLaren, D., Agyeman, J. (2017). Sharing Cities A Case for Truly Smart and Sustainable Cities. New Political Science, 39(3), 1−3. DOI:10.1080/07393148.2017.1339 416.

19. Pucheta-Martínez, M. C. (2020). Does stakeholder engagement encourage environmental reporting? The mediating role of firm performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(4), 3025−3037. DOI:10.1002/bse.2416.

20. Romasheva, N., Dmitrieva, D. (2021). Energy resources exploitation in the russian arctic: Challenges and prospects for the sustainable development of the ecosystem, Energies, 14(24), 8300. DOI: 10.3390/en14248300.

21. Rybak, Y., Khayrutdinov, M., Kongar-Syuryun, C., Tyulyayeva, Y. (2021). Resourcesaving technologies for development of mineral deposits. Sustainable Development of Mountain Territories, 13(3), 405−415. DOI: 10.21177/1998−4502−2021−13−3-406−415.

22. Rybak, J., Ivannikov, A., Egorova, A., Ohotnikova, K., Fernandes, I. (2017). Some remarks on experience based geotechnical education. International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference Surveying Geology and Mining Ecology Management, SGEM, 17(12), 1003−1012. DOI: 10.5593/sgem2017/12/S02.127.

23. Samylovskaya, E., Kudryavtseva, R. E., Medvedev, D., et al. (2020). Transformation of the personnel training system for oil and gas projects in the Russian Arctic, Resources, 21100808642, 9, 1−20. DOI: 10.3390/resources9110137.

24. Samylovskaya, E., Makhovikov, A., Lutonin, A., et al. (2022). Digital Technologies in Arctic Oil and Gas Resources Extraction: Global Trends and Russian Experience, Resources,21100808642, 11. DOI: 10.3390/resources11030029.

25. Shadyzheva, S. B. (2021). Development of theoretical foundations of the concept of sustainable development and its models. MIAB. Mining Inf. Anal. Bull., S15, 3−14. DOI: 10. 25018/0236_1493_2021_10_15_3.

26. Shahzad, M. (2020). Translating stakeholders’ pressure into environmental practices — The mediating role of knowledge management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 275 124163. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124163.

27. Vallet, A. (2019). Linking equity, power, and stakeholders’ roles in relation to ecosystem services. Ecology and Society, 24(2), 14. DOI: 10.5751/ES-10904−240214.

28. Volk, R. (2019). An Integrated Material Flows, Stakeholders and Policies Approach to Identify and Exploit Regional Resource Potentials. Ecological Economics, 161, 292−320. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.03.020.

29. Vuorinen, L., Martinsuo, M. (2019). Value-oriented stakeholder influence on infrastructure projects. International Journal of Project Management, 37(5), 750−766. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.10.003.

30. Williamson, V., Eisen, N. (2016). The impact of Open Government: Assessing the evidence Center for Effective Public Management at Brookings Washington DC U. S.