In the second half of 2021, the overall situation in the Russian economy was rather contradictory. On the one hand, the recovery of economic activity continued in most industries, which compensated for the crisis failure of 2020: according to the Federal State Statistics Service, Russia’s GDP in the first 9 months of 2021 was 4.6% higher than the GDP for the same period in 2020; investment in fixed assets over the same period increased by 7.6%; the increase in industrial production in January–November 2021 compared to January–November 2020 was 5.2% [1]. On the other hand, the COVID-19 pandemic continued, periodically forcing the authorities to introduce various restrictions on the social activity of citizens, which, of course, had a negative impact on the state of affairs in a number of economic activities – the hotel and restaurant business, passenger transport, service sector, etc. In addition, there was a surge in consumer prices and producer prices in the country. According to the estimates of the Federal State Statistics Service, consumer prices increased by 6.5% in January–November 2021 compared to the same period in 2020 and producer prices grew by 24.1% [1]. According to many experts, more than half of this jump in inflation is explained by the rapid rise in prices (primarily for raw materials and food products) in world markets, and the role of domestic monetary factors in these processes is relatively small [2, 3]. However, the Bank of Russia decided to fight the rise in prices by compressing the money supply through a sharp increase in the key rate, raising it from 4.25% in the first quarter of 2021 to 8.50% in December 2021 [4]. As a result, in the second half of 2021, the recovery of the Russian economy slowed down significantly and even “reversed” in some industries, for example, in construction [5].

A survey of Russian enterprises conducted by the Institute for Economic Forecasting of the Russian Academy of Sciences in November–December 2021Footnote 1 confirmed the inconsistency of trends in the Russian economy. In particular, when answering the question about the most acute macroeconomic problems, noticeable positive changes were revealed in some cases, while negative ones became apparent in others. Positive shifts include a reduction in the share of answers about insufficient effective demand (51.33% in 2021 versus 65.47% in 2020 and 65.27% in 2019), as well as about the high level of competition from other Russian manufacturers (18.0% in 2021 versus 23.74% in 2020 and 31.14% in 2019). Such dynamics in the responses indicate a clear improvement in the overall situation with the sale of products. At the same time, the share of complaints about high inflation increased sharply—38.67% of responses in 2021 compared to 18.71% in 2020 and 7.78% in 2019. The share of responses about difficulties in obtaining short-term and long-term loans also increased markedly in 2021. In addition, it should be noted that the long-term trend has been interrupted, which reflected a steady decrease in the frequency of complaints about excessive bureaucracy and corruption in public authorities. In 2021, the share of such complaints increased to 18%, returning to the level of 2013 (Table 1).

Table 1.   Answers to the question: “What macroeconomic problems currently create the greatest difficulties for your enterprise” (sum of answers > 100%)
Full size table

The curtailment of measures of state support for business against the backdrop of improvements in the economy also caused a contradictory reaction from Russian enterprises. By the end of 2021, the share of respondents who believed that they had suffered from the consequences of the pandemic decreased to 57.70% (Table 2), and this is an unambiguously positive trend.

Table 2.   Answers to the question: “Has your company suffered from the events related to the coronavirus pandemic?” (sum of answers = 100%)
Full size table

At the same time, however, the share of enterprises that were able to take advantage of federal anticrisis support measures decreased significantly from 30.46% in the spring of 2021 to 21.80% at the end of 2021 (Table 3). There was still a very small share of enterprises (8.20%) that managed to receive anticrisis support at the regional level (Table 4).

Table 3.   Answers to the question: “Has your enterprise managed to take advantage of the support measures promised by the federal authorities in connection with the coronavirus pandemic?” (sum of answers = 100%)
Full size table
Table 4.   Answers to the question: “Has your enterprise managed to take advantage of the support measures promised by the regional authorities in connection with the coronavirus pandemic?” (sum of answers = 100%)
Full size table

As a result, by the end of 2021, the level of approval of the anticrisis policy of state power by Russian enterprises noticeably decreased. For example, the share of the answer “everything is being done correctly” halved over six months from 18.50% in the spring of 2021 to 9.30% at the end of 2021, while the share of the answer “very badly” sharply increased over the same period from 1.50% to 11.40% (Table 5). In other words, there is reason to say that it was premature for the Russian economic authorities to curtail state support as well as to tighten monetary and tax policies.

Table 5.   Answers to the question: “How do you assess the activities of the state authorities in providing economic support to enterprises affected by the coronavirus pandemic?” (sum of answers=100%)
Full size table

The tightening of monetary policy, in particular, has clearly reduced the availability of credit for enterprises. In addition to the growth of problems with obtaining short-term and long-term loans, which is reflected in Table 1, we should point out the increase in the share of enterprises whose cooperation with banks is limited only to settlement and cash services was from 47.10% in 2020 to 54.10% in 2021 (Table 6). At the same time, there was no increase in claims against the banking system itself (Tables 7, 8). Consequently, the growth of problems with lending is associated precisely with an increase in the key rate.

Table 6.   Answers to the question: “What is the current cooperation between your company and Russian banks?” (sum of answers = 100%)
Full size table
Table 7.   Answers to the question: “How, in your opinion, has the fulfillment by banks of their obligations to enterprises changed over the past year?” (sum of answers = 100%)
Full size table
Table 8.   Answers to the question: “Has your company experienced a deliberate delay in the processing of payments by banks over the past year?” (sum of answers = 100%)
Full size table

Another very significant problem for enterprises is the level of tax burden [6, 7]. As can be seen from the data in Table 9, at least two-thirds of the surveyed enterprises have consistently responded over the past decade that the real tax burden is growing. Apparently, this view of the respondents on the state of affairs is due to the fact that the rapid digitalization of economic processes in the country makes it more and more difficult to evade taxation. Therefore, even with nominally stable fiscal rates, the real level of tax withdrawals is steadily increasing. In this regard, it is quite natural that the frequency of reports that tax evasion in Russia has become less has increased over the past three years from 27.40% of responses in 2021 compared to 20.71% in 2018, and the share of responses about the fact that tax evasion has grown has decreased from 7.50% of answers in 2021 versus 11.43% in 2018 (Table 10).

Table 9.   Answers to the question: “How do you assess changes in the real tax burden on your company over the past 2–3 years?” (sum of answers = 100%)
Full size table
Table 10. Answers to the question: “In your opinion, what is the situation with tax evasion by enterprises in the Russian economy over the past 2–3 years?” (sum of answers = 100%)
Full size table

Among the problems that have been troubling Russian enterprises in recent years, the aggravation of the situation with labor resources should be especially noted. By the end of 2021, the share of enterprises’ responses about the lack of labor resources reached the highest level in the last 20 years—49%. If we compare the situation at the end of 2021 with the low point of the pandemic crisis (spring 2020), then the frequency of reports about a general shortage of workers has increased by almost three times (Table 11). At the same time, as usual, enterprises most often point to a shortage of highly skilled workers (82.50% of the responses). The share of responses about the shortage of engineering and technical workers is noticeably lower at 37.20%, however, this level has also become the highest in the last 20 years. It should also be noted that there is an increase in the frequency of reports about a shortage of low-skilled workers and maintenance personnel (Table 12).

Table 11.   Answers to the question: “How is your enterprise currently provided with labor resources?” (sum of answers = 100%)
Full size table
Table 12.   Answers to the question: “Which kind of workers does your company lack currently?” (sum of answers > 100%)
Full size table

The survey tested the hypothesis that the current shortage of labor resources is largely due to quarantine measures, which were taken at the height of the pandemic and seriously limited the influx of labor migrants from abroad and from other regions of Russia. The survey data confirmed this hypothesis only partially. The share of responses about the great need for foreign labor migrants was only 1.40%, and the share of responses about its average level was 6.10%. At the same time, 78.40% of respondents reported a zero need for foreign labor migrants (Table 13). The need for labor migrants from other regions of Russia turned out to be higher, but it was not universal. In particular, 50.70% of enterprises reported a zero need for Russian labor migrants (Table 14). Thus, it can be assumed that the main factor that predetermined the shortage of labor resources was unfavorable demographic trends, which are expressed in a constant reduction in the working-age population of Russia [8, 9].

Table 13.   Answers to the question: “What is the need of your enterprise for foreign labor migrants?” (sum of answers = 100%)
Full size table
Table 14.   Answers to the question: “What is the need of your enterprise for Russian labor migrants?” (sum of answers = 100%)
Full size table

Against the background of problems with the availability of credit and labor resources, the question of how much Russian enterprises can increase the volume of production without resorting to additional capital investments is very important. The potential for such growth (“without investment”) largely determines the potential of the overall economic dynamics in the country in the short term. As the survey data have shown, a certain potential for noninvestment growth in Russia remains, although it has somewhat decreased compared with the potential of previous periods. In any case, 43.80% of the surveyed enterprises reported that they had free capacities at which they could produce competitive products (Table 15). The increase in output due to the use of free capacities of the enterprise is estimated differently, but most often there were answers about the possibility of increasing output in the range from 11 to 30% (Table 16).

Table 15.   Answers to the question: “Does your company have idle production facilities, where it would be possible to produce products that are competitive on the Russian markets without large investments?” (sum of answers = 100%)
Full size table
Table 16.   Answers to the question: “To what extent can the output at your enterprise be increased by loading idle capacities (without large investments)?” (sum of answers = 100%)
Full size table

As part of the current survey, research was continued on the attitude of enterprises to aspects of sustainable development such as resource and energy saving, greening of production and environmental risk management, and taking into account the global sustainable development goals (SDGs).

The survey results showed that while resource and energy saving were of great importance for 55% of respondents in 2012 the share of such answers decreased to 36% in 2021 (Fig. 1). At the same time, the share of those for whom the problems of resource and energy saving are of zero and low importance has increased over the past decade (from 1 to 8% and from 17 to 23%, respectively). In other words, there is a certain decrease in the attention of enterprises to this problem.

figure 1

Fig. 1. Answers to the question: “What is the importance of resource and energy saving for your enterprise?”, % (sum of answers = 100%): 2012; 2018; 2021.

On the one hand, it is possible that the interest of some enterprises in resolving issues of resource and energy saving has indeed lowered, since the benefits of investing in the greening of production are not obvious due to their long-term payback [10, 11]. In addition, a decrease in interest in resource and energy efficiency can also be caused by a shift in attention to solving more pressing problems.

On the other hand, such dynamics may indicate that some enterprises have managed to bring their technological processes to a conditional optimum in terms of resource and energy saving, and so far they do not need to further improve the efficiency of these processes.

When answering the question about the benefits of resource and energy saving, over the past decade, the respondents have become less likely to point to the economic reason—cost reduction (93% in 2012 vs. 86% in 2021). In addition, the answers included the options such as “the enterprise does not receive any benefits,” “economic benefits are zero,” etc.

On the contrary, the environmental and social motives of the enterprise began to be pointed out more often. The share of answers such as “reduction of environmental claims from the authorities and the public,” “reduction of waste and harmful emissions,” and “improvement of working conditions” increased from 7 to 12%, from 17 to 19%, and from 11 to 16%, respectively (Fig. 2).

figure 2

Fig. 2. Answers to the question: “What result does your company get from the activities on resource and energy saving?”

2012; 2018; 2021.

This development of events indicates the formation of a long-term sustainable trend: energy and resource saving is becoming less important in terms of obtaining economic benefits, but more important in terms of ensuring positive environmental and social outcomes.

However, despite the more frequent indication of environmental and social motives, the share of enterprises investing in the greening of production decreased from 54% in 2012 to 50% in 2021, after a slight increase in 2018 (Fig. 3). A noticeable decrease in such investments compared to 2018 (by 7%) can be explained by the fact that Russian business had to solve more pressing problems under the conditions of various kinds of restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Fig. 3.
figure 3

Answers to the question: “Has your enterprise carried out any investments in the greening of production (including resource and energy saving) in the past 2–3 years?”, (sum of answers = 100%): yes; no.

Full size image

Meanwhile, the attention of Russian enterprises to the sustainable development goals (SDGs) continues to grow. Thus, solving the problems related to the problem of global warming turned out to be significant for 17% of enterprises in 2021, while in 2018 their share was only 11% (Fig. 4).

figure 4

Fig. 4. Answers to the question: “What is the importance of solving the tasks related to the problem of global warming for your company: reducing greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for climate change, etc.?”:

2018; 2021.

The share of enterprises for which the UN Sustainable Development Goals are important in developing their own strategies also increased from 46% in 2018 to 52% in 2021: in addition, the awareness of enterprises about the SDGs significantly grew; the number of the respondents that were not familiar with them decreased over the period under review by 15 p.p. (Fig. 5).

figure 5

Fig. 5. Answers to the question: “Do you consider it important to take into account the global sustainable development goals in the development strategy of your enterprise based on the need to comply with trends in the global economy?”:

2018; 2021.

Some improvement can also be seen in the case of publication of reports of enterprises in the field of sustainable development. The share of enterprises publishing such reports in 2021 increased to 23%, the share of those that did not publish them decreased to 67%, and the share of those planning to publish the reports doubled to 10% (Fig. 6).

figure 6

Fig. 6. Answers to the question: “Does your company publish annual reports in the field of sustainable development?”:

2018; 2021.

Another area of research within the framework of the current survey was environmental risks that can damage the activities of enterprises: environmental pollution, natural disasters, heat waves, droughts, etc. According to the survey results, half of the respondents indicated that environmental risks were of low importance. Only 26% of enterprises noted the medium and high degree of influence of such risks (Fig. 7). Among them, representatives of industries such as forestry, woodworking and pulp and paper industries, agriculture, engineering, ferrous and nonferrous metallurgy (i.e., the industries that are either significantly exposed to climate risks or have hazardous productions that can cause significant damage to the environment) were met most frequently.

Fig. 7.
figure 7

Answers to the question: “What is the impact of environmental risks on the activity of your enterprise— environmental pollution, natural disasters, heat waves, droughts, etc.?”

Full size image

The share of enterprises that suffered real damage from environmental risks amounted to 13% (Fig. 8). Approximately 20% of enterprises have a formalized environmental risk management system, and another 13% of respondents plan to create it (Fig. 9). However, Russian enterprises rarely insure environmental risks so far, only 5% of respondents do this, and another 7% plan to insure their environmental risks in the future (Fig. 10).

Fig. 8.
figure 8

Answers to the question: “Did your enterprise suffer damage from the implementation of environmental risks?”

Full size image
Fig. 9.
figure 9

Answers to the question: “Does your enterprise have a formalized environmental risk management system?”

Full size image
Fig. 10.
figure 10

Answers to the question: “Does your company deal with insurance of environmental risks?”

Full size image

The low proportion of respondents involved in environmental insurance (5% of insurers compared to 26% for which environmental risks are significant) is not only due to the fact that enterprises rarely experience negative consequences of the implementation of risks and the damage caused by them, but is also caused by an underdeveloped market for environmental risk insurance. First, Russian legislation does not yet have strict requirements for enterprises with hazardous industries to insure environmental risks, although government authorities have recently been increasingly discussing this initiative [12]. Second, environmental insurance policies most often do not cover damage from all types of environmental pollution, but only from sudden ones resulting from accidents or unforeseen situations. It is rather problematic to insure the environmental risks of gradually accumulated environmental damage in the Russian insurance market [13].

Currently, various state regulation measures that force enterprises to increase energy efficiency, the degree of greening of production and social and environmental corporate responsibility are ineffective, and comprehensive measures that stimulate investment in the modernization of production assets are not enough [14]. Thus, enterprises on the path to sustainable production methods need even more significant targeted support from the state, which must be fixed at the institutional level.

The main conclusions of the survey are as follows:

1. The macroeconomic problems that worsened most in 2021 are believed by enterprises to include the shortage of labor resources, high inflation, and difficulties in obtaining loans.

2. After the curtailment of state support measures and tightening of monetary policy, enterprises began to evaluate the anticrisis policy of the state more negatively.

3. The overall need for labor migrants among Russian enterprises is relatively small, the shortage of workers is primarily associated with demographic factors and insufficient growth in labor productivity.

4. The potential for noninvestment growth in the Russian economy still remains, but it has somewhat decreased compared to the situation in the 2010s.

5. The attention of Russian enterprises to the issues of resource and energy saving has somewhat decreased.

6. Russian enterprises have begun more often to take into account the UN SDGs in their activities: they are taken into consideration when developing corporate development strategies; the share of enterprises publishing reports in the field of sustainable development is growing.

7. Environmental risks are significant for about a quarter of the surveyed enterprises, a formalized system for managing them exists in about a fifth of enterprises, and only 5% of respondents are engaged in environmental risk insurance.

Acknowledgments. G.P. Belyakova, L.I. Pisareva, N.I. Titova, R.A. Galetskaya, O.Yu. Galetskaya, and L.S. Krutova took part in preparing the article. We would like to thank E.K. Vorobei (Sochi State University), S.V. Terebova (VoRC RAS), N.N. Evchenko (Southern Federal University), and N.Ya. Krivonosova (Baikal State University) for help in organizing the survey.

Conflict of interests. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.