Press Center

Interview of YANG CONSULT Managing Partner in RBG business publication

In today's world, where businesses are facing increasing regulatory challenges, the role of Government Relations (GR) is becoming key to the sustainable development of companies. In the competitive struggle, those who know how not only to earn money, but also to build relations with the state win. YANG CONSULT is a leading international GR law company that has been helping businesses to establish a strategically sound dialogue with all authorities for over 16 years. Magomed Yangulbi, lawyer, Candidate of Political Sciences, researcher and public figure, Managing partner and founder of YANG CONSULT, talks about the role of GR in shaping the company's image and reputation, and how to properly integrate GR strategy into communication policy.

– How would you define the concept of Government Relations (GR) in the context of modern business?

– GR can be viewed in two planes – wide and narrow. In a broad sense, it is a communication system between society and the state, when policy and regulation are influenced not only by business, but also by NGOs, associations, expert communities, and civil society institutions.In a narrow sense, as applied to business,

GR is a managerial function aimed at legitimate and strategic interaction with authorities to protect the interests of the company, reduce risks and participate in the formation of a regulatory environment. The essence of GR is not to come to an agreement on the sidelines, but in an institutional dialogue, where business acts as an expert and partner of the state.

Companies developing systemic GR do not just adapt to changes, they influence the rules of the game through participation in councils, expert discussions and national projects.

– For companies that are interested in developing GR, what aspects are key to developing a GR strategy? Are there universal principles that work effectively regardless of the industry?

– Key principles include such components as consistency, transparency and respect for institutional procedures. Any strategy should begin with an analysis of the regulatory environment, mapping stakeholders (identifying target agencies), and forming a reasoned position of the company.

Among the universal principles, I can name reliability, predictability, and sustainability of communications. GR is not only a crisis tool, it is an ongoing process. Regardless of the industry, it is important that the company not only solves issues, but also builds trusting relationships with government institutions based on expertise, public (state) interest and professional reputation.

– What risks can a business face if it ignores GR?

– In my opinion, the main risk is the loss of manageability of the business environment. When a company doesn't keep track of regulatory changes, it finds itself in a catch-up position. Without GR, one can face sudden constraints, unpredictable demands, and, most importantly, a lack of voice in decision-making processes.

– How big is the role of GR in shaping the company's image and reputation today?

– It is truly colossal and surprisingly underestimated. Today, the reputation of a business is determined not only by financial results, but also by the degree of its involvement in government and public processes.

Companies that openly interact with the authorities, participate in the development of regulations, support social initiatives and build a constructive dialogue with regulators, are perceived as responsible, stable and reliable partners. It is GR that creates the type of reputation in which government agencies, banks, investors, and customers are comfortable cooperating with the company.

This is the reputation of a mature business operating in the legal field, predictable in its decisions and understandable to partners.

– Could you share examples where an effective GR strategy has helped the company to build a constructive dialogue with regulators. And what impact did this have on business development?

– There are many cases in the practice of YANG CONSULT, when a competent GR position allowed companies not only to avoid sanctions, but also to build partnerships with the state.For example, in the agricultural sector, we supported a project to include an innovative product in the register of the Ministry of Agriculture. T

hanks to expert consultations, participation in specialized meetings and the support of industry associations, the client received the status of a recommended supplier and entered the procurement process.

Another example is the support of companies when entering regional markets. We have been building a systematic GR dialogue with the authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, helping businesses find partners, receive letters of support, and participate in infrastructure programs. This approach ensures not just entry into the region, but a stable presence based on institutional mechanisms. In addition, we accompany foreign companies that enter the Russian market. GR plays a crucial role here, from analyzing the regulatory environment to building transparent relationships with federal and regional structures.

Companies that come to Russia through YANG CONSULT receive not only legal security, but also a real understanding of how to interact with government institutions within the framework of the law.

– Are there any examples when failures in the field of GR led to reputational crises?

– Yes, such situations do happen, but, as a rule, the problem is not in GR itself, but in how it is built within the company. Very often, businesses remember about GR already when there is a conflict or a serious regulatory risk on the horizon.

n a crisis, a competent GR is really able to mitigate the consequences, restore dialogue with regulators, and reduce the degree of tension. But if before that there was neither a systematic position nor a clear line of interaction with the state, you have to work under time constraints, and the cost of making a mistake increases significantly.

The danger arises where GR turns into a set of disparate steps: today the company sends a letter, tomorrow it goes to the media, the day after tomorrow it tries to join some kind of discussion format - without a common strategy, without a single message and understanding how it looks from the point of view of the state and society. In such cases, efforts may be perceived as chaotic and incur reputational costs.

That's why I always say: GR should be not only an anti-crisis tool, but also a part of the normal peaceful life of the company. When a dialogue with the government is built up in advance, based on expertise and compliance with appropriate procedures, even difficult situations are solved more calmly, more predictably and with less reputational losses.

– How to properly integrate the GR strategy into the overall communication policy of the company?

– GR cannot exist in isolation. It should be integrated into corporate strategy, PR and ESG directions. At the planning stage, it is important to define a single message of the company: what we represent and what social tasks we solve. It is important that GR does not contradict other communication channels, but rather enhances them. That's why I always say: GR is not only a legal tool, but also a management tool that requires synchronization with marketing, PR and HR.

– Which GR tools are most effective for synchronizing with communication policy?

– These are expert councils, industry platforms, associations, participation in public discussions, business missions and forums. Today, digital tools have been added to them – regulatory analytics, GR-Tech platforms, and public opinion monitoring. All this allows you to build a strategy based on accurate data, rather than intuition. For example, we are developing our own GR Shield product, a platform for assessing regulatory risks and scenario analysis of initiatives.

– What challenges do companies face when integrating GR into communication policy and how to overcome them?

There is an understanding within the company that GR is part of a strategy, not an external function. When there is no common vision, GR is perceived as a separate area, unrelated to marketing, PR, or the legal unit. This leads to fragmentation and loss of manageability of communications.

The second challenge is the lack of internal expertise. Not all managers are ready to competently interact with government agencies, correctly formulate the company's position and understand how their words or actions affect their reputation.

Overcoming begins with education and building a culture of transparent interaction. Companies that invest in the training of GR teams and create unified communication standards are much more successful in dialogue with government and society.

– How can you assess the success of a GR strategy in shaping your image and reputation?

– The effectiveness of GR cannot be measured in one figure – it is always a combination of qualitative and quantitative factors.

Several key criteria can be identified: the predictability of the regulatory environment, the level of government involvement in dialogue with business, and the stability of the company's position in the market. If a business sees that its interests are taken into account when preparing regulatory decisions, it means that GR really works.

In addition, it is important to evaluate the quality of feedback: how constructive the dialogue is, whether new platforms for interaction have appeared, and whether trust between business and the state has increased. It is not the number of meetings or publications that determines success, but the depth of influence on the processes.

There is another indicator that is more difficult to calculate – the overall economic effect of GR. It may take a while to see it, but it shows up in the long run.: reducing risks, simplifying administrative procedures, increasing the number of partnerships, and increasing turnover. All this is a direct consequence of systematic and competent GR.

– What changes do you predict in the role of GR in the next 5-10 years?

– GR will change along with the very structure of public administration. We are already entering an era where data, technology and analytics are becoming the basis of interaction between business and government.

Therefore, GR is gradually moving from the sphere of personal communications to the digital and institutional plane. GR-Tech solutions– platforms that allow you to monitor regulatory initiatives, assess their impact on business, and build a transparent dialogue with regulators in real time, are becoming increasingly important.

Another important trend is the strengthening of the role of expert and public communities. The government is increasingly building a dialogue with businesses through industry councils, think tanks, and professional associations. As a result, GR will become not just an interaction tool, but a part of the strategic management system.

Companies that are already building digital communication channels and are able to argue their interests in the language of numbers, data and demonstration of public benefit will be the most stable and influential in the next decade.

– What is the difference between a GR specialist and a lawyer or PR manager, and why can't they replace him?

– A GR specialist acts at the intersection of law, politics and management, which is what makes his role unique.The lawyer works with the existing norms – he protects the company within the framework of the current legislation. A PR specialist shapes the public perception and image of the company.

But GR is about influencing the rules of the game before they are finally adopted, building legitimate and constructive relations with the authorities, and participating in shaping the regulatory environment.

A good GR expert can read not only the texts of laws, he monitors the state's agenda, predicts policy directions, understands how decisions are made and at what level the position of business can be argued. It combines the language of law, economics and public administration into a single strategy.

Lawyers and PR can be part of the GR team, but they cannot replace it, because GR is primarily a managerial and strategic function, not a service one. It requires systematic thinking, analytics, participation in institutional processes, and the ability to build a long-term dialogue between business and government.

– What advice would you give to companies that are just starting to develop GR?

– First of all, to perceive GR not as an addition to PR or legal direction, but as an independent strategic function. GR is not just about solving issues, it is about forming a stable position of the company in relations with the state. You should start with the basics: analyzing the regulatory environment, assessing regulatory risks, and understanding which government agencies influence your business.

After that, a roadmap of interaction is being built: who, how and at what level conducts the dialogue, which expert formats and platforms to use. The second step is to create an internal GR culture. It is important that management and key managers understand the goals and tools of this work.

Without the involvement of top management, GR becomes a formality. Finally, we need to rely on professionals – people who understand how the state system works, how decisions are made, and what arguments are perceived at the government level. Making a mistake at the start is expensive, but a sound strategy, built from the very beginning, gives the company stability, reputation and real competitive advantages.

GR should be not only an anti-crisis tool, but also a part of the normal peaceful life of the company. When a dialogue with the government is built up in advance, based on expertise and compliance with appropriate procedures, even difficult situations are solved more calmly, more predictably and with less reputational losses.

The full interview is available here https://www.rbgmedia.ru/files/rbg-331.pdf

2025-12-28 01:35 THE MEDIA