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

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

2. 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

3. 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)

4. 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)

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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)

8. 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