STAKEHOLDER APPROACH TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ‘THIRD MISSION’ OF UNIVERSITIES

The implementation of the ‘third mission’ by universities is a significant area of research that has been explored by many Russian and international experts. The ‘third mission’ means engaging with society. Alongside education and research, it is an important factor in the successful development of a contemporary university. In this article, we explore how stakeholder theory, which is successfully employed in the management of large organisations, may be applied for the development of mechanisms for effective implementation of the ‘third mission’ by universities. We identify the main problems in organising stakeholder interactions at Russian universities and analyse possible strategies to improve the situation. We use the examples of Polish, Swedish, and Russian universities to illustrate the practical aspects of interactions at different levels between universities and stakeholders., forms, and methods in the field. Further, we propose a classification of key stakeholders of universities, describe their mutual relations, interests, and resources available to them as well as reflect on stakeholder participation models in educational management. Our findings may contribute to better management at Russian educational institutions and benefit national education authorities.


Introduction
Ssuccessful development of a contemporary university requires active col laboration with many organisations, communities, groups, and individuals, all of which have a certain relationship to the university, depend on it, make de mands to it, can influence it or benefit from it. All of them have their own interests. Bound to be taken into account, these interests can translate into a competitive advantage or even create a framework for university's daily opera tions. They may be differently aimed and often conflicting; they may affect the trajectory of a university's development from different sides and with varying intensity.
It is becoming evident that, alongside the two traditional missions of a univer sity (education and research), a third one has emerged to play an important role. It has to do with a university's contribution to the development of its surroundings.
Thus, the analysis of interactions between a university and its key internal and external stakeholders is of major significance. In conducting such analysis, one may rely on the tenets of stakeholder theory, which has been successfully applied to strategic management of enterprises. Many Russian authors (Artemiy Patrakh in [1], Vasily Strekalovsky and Vasily Savvinov [2], Vitaly Nagornov and Olga Perfilyeva [3; 4]; Elena Popova [5], and others) believe that stakeholder theory can be applied to higher education, and that university governance can be viewed as stakeholder management.
According to the fundamental ideas of stakeholder theory, company man agement should identify groups and stimulate processes that contribute to the business development. The central concern is to leverage the relations and in terests of shareholders, employees, clients, communities, and other groups in such a way as to ensure the longterm prosperity of the company. Leadership passes to the company that can best suit the interests of stakeholders and whose public relations strategy rests on a communications policy that is common to all the stakeholder groups. Thus, stakeholder relations management is a key administrative objective that is in line with the interest of both stakeholders and the organisation itself.
In this paper, we seek to produce recommendations for universities on how to adopt stakeholder management practices used by for-profit companies to make universities more efficient in accomplishing the 'third mission', that is, their en gagement in comprehensive development of their regional communities.

The tenets of stakeholder theory
When stakeholder theory emerged in the 1960s, its initial postulate held that companies are not only economic agents established for generating profits but also important components of their environments as well as systems that affect and are affected by the environment. R. Edward Freeman, professor of business administration at the Darden School of the University of Virginia, formulated the key principles of stakeholder theory in his book Strategic management: A stakeholder approach, where he defined stakeholders as 'any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization's objec tives' [6, p.15].
Taken literally, the word 'stakeholder' means a company or a person who has invested in a business and owns a share in it. This word is also used to refer to someone who is interested in the success of a plan or a project. Other definitions include phrases, like 'interest holder', 'involved party, 'pressure group', 'coali tion members', 'target audience', and 'interest group'.
In his exploration of Freeman's theory, M. A. Petrov defines a stakeholder as 'a community or an individual who is capable of both shortterm and longterm influence on the performance of a company or is affected by an organisation' [9, p. 8]. Igor Gurkov believes that 'stakeholders are not mere "groups or people" affected by a firm but they are "contributors" of a certain resource' [10, p. 29]. Vitaly Tambovtsev defines stakeholders as 'organisations, individuals, or groups of individuals who consume (experience) positive and negative contact and ex ternal effects produced by the performance of a firm and are capable of affecting such performance' [11, p. 3-26].
The AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard (SES) issued by the Institute of Social and Ethical Accountability (AccountAbility) stipulates that stakehold ers are 'those individuals, groups of individuals or organisations that affect and/ or could be affected by an organisation's activities, products or services and as sociated performance'. 1 The standard distinguishes three types of interaction with stakeholders: 1) interaction with a view to alleviating a problem that has resulted from pres sure and has a local effect; 2) systematic engagement towards risk management and a better understand ing of stakeholders; 3) comprehensive strategic cooperation aimed at sustainable competitiveness.
James E. Post, Lee E. Preston, and Sybille Sachs further developed stakehold er theory in their book Redefining the Corporation: Stakeholder Management and Organizational Wealth. They maintain that organisational wealth is 'the summary measure of the capacity of an orga nization to create benefits for any and all of its stakeholders over the long term' [12, p. 52]. In other words, organisational wealth is a longterm social accountability policy. Popov and Fomina take this further, stating that 'stakeholder theory is the theory of a special company model that views organisations as socially accountable institutions in contemporary (capital ist) society' [13, pp. 60-65].
In exploring Freeman's ideas, Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer pro pose the concept of shared values, which they define as 'policies and opera tional practices that enhance the competitiveness of a company while simul taneously advancing the economic and social conditions in the communities in which it operates' [14, p. 67]. They argue that the activities that are in line with the values of society are not a burden on business but rather its very es sence. They distinguish between the concept of shared values and the policy of corporate social accountability. The latter, for instance, requires additional spending, whereas shared value creation is inseparable from generating reve nues. Social accountability can result from both internal and external pressure, while shared value creation is intrinsic in business competition. Thus, pur suing the interests of involved parties fits very well with doing business and becomes part of the latter.
Russian and international researchers have proposed various approaches to stakeholder classification. Freeman believes that stakeholders constitute the environment, both internal (employees, shareholders, suppliers, and custom ers) and external (NGOs, government bodies, mass media, competitors, special groups) [6]. Jeffrey S. Harrison and Caron H. St. John distinguish three regions in the stakeholder environment: broad, operating, and external. The first one comprises sociopolitical and economic phenomena affecting a company; the second -customers, communities, lenders, trade unions, competitors, and the state; the third consists of shareholders and employees [15]. Grant T. Savage et al. consider stakeholders from the perspective of their capacity for threat or cooperation and classify them into supportive, mixed blessing, nonsupportive, and marginal [16]. Ronald K. Mitchell et al. identify stakeholder types based on the attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency, and propose a classification that uses a combination of these characteristics [17]. The existing literature di vides stakeholders into real stakeholders, stakewatchers, and stakekeepers [18, p. 122 They classify external stakeholders into the categories of employees (prospective employees); investors (credit institutions, investment fund managers and anal ysis, rating agencies); customers (end consumers, intermediaries, influencers); suppliers (raw materials suppliers, service and infrastructure providers); com petitors (direct competitors, substitute goods manufacturers), the government and regulators (line ministries, departments, and committees); business part ners (licensees, universities); local communities (neighbours, local authorities, charities, volunteer organisations); universities and the academic community (research centres, researchers and professors); the media (radio, TV, printed me dia, the Internet), NGOs and pressure groups (human rights and environmental organisations) [24, p. 98].

Stakeholder theory and higher education
Russian researchers have applied the principles of business stakeholder identi fication to devise approaches to stakeholder classification in the sphere of educa tion. According to Nagornov and Perfilyeva, education stakeholders are regional The central issue in stakeholder management is the creation of effective stakeholder interaction mechanisms to stimulate organisational development. University-stakeholder interactions have multiple stages. The first one is the identification of a university's stakeholders; this includes both compiling a list of relevant actors and analysing the relations between them and the university. In his analysis of stakeholder types, Gerald Vinten describes intrastakeholder relationships, stakeholder groups, and the nature of their interests. He also urges one to examine the sources of stakeholder powers, to explore associated threats and opportunities, to trace changes in stakeholder grouping, to determine the economic, legal, and ethical responsibilities of each group, and consider what strategies are best for managing a certain stakeholder group [26]. The next stage involves the analysis of stakeholders expectations and interests as regards the university, as well as identification of relevant communication channels. Then, a stakeholder interaction model is chosen that takes into account the degree and nature of the influence of each stakeholder on the university. When the select ed model starts to operate, its efficiency is evaluated, strengths and weakness es are identified, and calibration is performed. Then, a strategy for interactions with stakeholders is developed. It includes a list of development areas that seem promising in the long run. Patrakhin describes three major strategies for inter actions with university stakeholders. The first one, which is applied to high-pro file groups, suggests regular control and maximum involvement of stakehold ers. The second strategy consists in organising consultation meetings to develop long-term decisions that will keep stakeholder groups continually satisfied. Key to the third strategy is raising awareness of the university's plans to win support from the groups in question [1].
Which stakeholder interaction strategy to choose depends on the university's general development strategy and the university's perception of its role and place in the development of its region. Most universities embrace the need for a social accountability policy within the third mission agenda. Here, effective interactions with stakeholders are a sine qua non and central element of success.
According to Marko Marhl and Attila Pausits, the third mission of a university entails the development of specific services -actions and opportunities contrib uting to the good of society [27]. Rendering such social services means catering for the needs of those who have connections to the university, that is, its stake holders. Thus, stakeholder approach to university governance is a twoway, and even multiway, street that has room for exchange of resources between universi ties and stakeholders as well as among various stakeholders, whose interactions are mediated by a university.

The third mission in Poland: the Pomeranian voivodeship
Polish universities are facing many problems, including population decline, a lack of trained specialists, and growing competition in the markets of educational services and R&D (particularly, a struggle for public funding). There is a pressing need for a strategy that universities will offer to a wide range of stakeholders: stu dents, faculty, local communities, the state, business, professional associations, religious and ethnic communities, and international organisations [28]. Interac tions between a contemporary university, the state, and the market are increasing ly the focus of research; their influence on national socio-economic development is growing. In implementing the third mission, universities will contribute to the popularisation and commercialisation of research; this will strongly affect social development in its economic, ethical, and civilizational aspects.
In their work The Third Sector in the Universities' Third Mission, Anna Maria Kola (Nicolaus Copernicus University) and Krzysztof Leja (Universit of Gdansk) stress that an exclusive loyalty to neoliberal values (the market, the labour market, financial performance, economic profit) creates a situation where society sees the university only as a tool for development [29]. The implementation of the third mission by universities will, however, affect the growth of earlier underestimated social capital. There are numerous examples of successful collaborations between NGOs and universities in Poland. They demonstrate how universities can use NGO tools to enhance research, upgrade the competencies of the staff, ensure the most competitive position in the world, improve financial standing, etc. A good example is the Collegium Invisibile association, which seeks to unlock the potential of students of all Poland's uni versities. The association offers academic and research support programmes for students, who can choose a tutor for themselves. The programme provides financial aid, thus giving students an opportunity to gain experience at the best universities worldwide. It helps to build social capital and upgrade students' competencies. Collegium students choose a tutor -usually, a worldrenowned professor (not necessarily a Pole) who has high social capital and is an author ity in a certain field. Each year, students report under his or her supervision on their research progress. Collegium is an association that is managed by its members, i.e. students; whereas responsibility for its research component rests with the Academic Council consisting of professors. Traditionally, the rector of the University of Warsaw is a member of the Council. An undisputed advantage of the association is that working closely with professors creates an environ ment for intellectual exchange driven by responsibility for the new generation of researchers. This way, science and education are becoming something of an assembly line for the transfer of humanistic values, which lie beyond business relations.
Alumni associations established by either universities or their graduates have an important role of connecting various sectors of the economy with the univer sity. The prime objectives are to support student culture, which facilitates aca demic integration, and to raise awareness of achievements by people affiliated with the university. Associations make it possible to create endowments -funds that finance research, education, and exchange programmes as well as aid student financially via scholarships.
Although significant changes have taken place in Poland after the educational reform of 2010-2011, the limited scope of activities, a focus on research and publications, and the dominant model of linear knowledge transfer still compli cate the implementation of the third mission and adversely affect universities' relationships with industry and society. Poland's higher education and research policy concentrate primarily on technology transfer and commercialisation. It is unlikely to achieve success because it is ignoring both the nonlinear nature of knowledge exchange and the role that universities play in solving social prob lems. The current policy neither focuses on the third mission nor pays significant attention to the principal role students have in knowledge transfer. Since 2018, the third mission activities of universities will receive support from the European structural and investment funds.
The city and the environment provide most Polish universities with a natural framework for industrial partnership. In particular, the government of the Pomer anian voivodeship actively cooperates with universities when it comes to region al development, doing so via the Council for Entrepreneurship and Education and the Council of Rectors. Key tools to mobilise universities to further regional development are as follows: -Strategy 2030 for the development of the Pomeranian voivodeship lists re gional goals. One of them is to ensure the competitiveness of higher education by recruiting students and professors, consolidating universities and encouraging their cooperation with business, vocational education, and international partners. Another goal is to create a network of professional educational institutions meet ing the needs of the regional labour market.
-Six regional programmes, including Pomorski Port Kreatywności (Pomer anian Port of Creativity), which acts in place of a regional innovation strategy. These programmes support The 2030 development strategy.
-Cluster policy and smart specialisation: over the past ten years, the re gion has been responsible for coordinating regional cluster policy, which became a framework for a new regional economic policy in 2013. Four specialisations were identified; within each, a council was established and projects launched.
The results of these activities are expected to have a profound effect on the im plementation of the third mission by universities.
-The EUfunded initiatives of 2007-2013: doctoral scholarships (268 PhDs specialising in innovative areas); thirteen infrastructural R&D projects (20 million euros); six higher education projects (17 million euros); the TriPOLIS project promoting cooperation between businesses and science parks and aimed to strengthen collaborations between business and research. The region is devel oping a mechanism for supporting R&D efforts and encouraging cooperation in international smart specialisation projects.
-Regional funds are supporting higher education programmes. In partic ular, there is an initiative aimed to attract international students to Pomeranian universities (it is cofunded by eight out of ten state universities in the region. Best students receive scholarships (forty students a year since 2002); since 2018, Marshal's award has been given for the best dissertation on a regionrelated topic.

The third mission in Lithuania: Vilnius University
According to Giustina Secundo et al. [30], the mission of Vilnius University lifelong learning and continuing education (aiming to develop business compe tencies and recruit talents for incubation; 3) social engagement (integration into regional, national, and international communities and networks) (table 1). Here are some examples of how Vilnius University is pursuing the third mis sion agenda: 1. The Developing Talent for Innovative Economy programme, launched by the university a year ago, is a case of active cooperation between Vilnius Univer sity and businesses.
2. Collaborations between the university and Thermo Fisher Scientific Bal tics, a company offering biotechnology students an opportunity to take business administration courses.
3. Cooperation with the ESADE Creapolis innovation centre, whose mission is to support companies and encourage cooperation within research projects. The centre has brought together seventy companies to create an innovative platform for exchanging ideas.
4. Collaborations with DTU Skylab, an interdisciplinary centre and communi ty for student innovation and entrepreneurship, supported by the Technical Uni versity of Denmark. The centre attracts 5,000 students annually. Involved in net working, DTU Skylab encourages companies and students to cooperate. Talented students often find employment after an internship with the centre.
5. Business-university collaborations within the Erasmus+ PROMOTE proj ect, which seeks to develop and confirm key competencies obtained via initia tives to enhance student mobility. The project uses an original approach to bridg ing business and academia.
Thus, Vilnius University is rapidly approaching the third mission goals in in ternationalisation and the development of entrepreneurial competencies. Little attention, however, is being paid to interactions between the university and the local community. Effective R&D cooperation between the industry and the uni versity is also lacking.

The third mission in Sweden: Uppsala University
Sweden's innovation policy supports the third mission initiatives of national universities [31]. Some institutions and programmes are particularly worth men tioning here. Vinnova, Sweden's innovation agency established in 2001, funds studies of university needs and seeks to encourage cooperation between busi ness, universities, and public authorities. Each year, new and ongoing projects receive 220 million euros total funding. Vinnova is changing academic culture by contributing to universities competitiveness and to the development of en trepreneurship. The agency has already launched several initiatives, including the Key Actors national programme, which has been running since 2006, aimed at streamlining interactions among universities, stakeholders, and other agents as well as to commercialise research. Another initiative, VINN Excellence, sup ports the creation of excellence centres at universities. Regional competitions held within the Vinnväxt initiative, seek to stimulate regional development by promoting cooperation between academia, business, and government.
Another major contributor to the implementation of the third mission is the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth (NUTEK). Among its many initiatives, the most prominent is the Regional cluster programme, which sup ports clusters with strong academic participation. In 2005, Swedish government launched the Innovationsbron (Innovation Bridge) initiative, which pursues the expansion, commercialisation, and effective use of statesupported R&D. At an early stage of company development, Innovationsbron acts as a seed investor. Annually, it funds from thirty to forty companies. KKstiftelsen (The Knowledge Foundation) supports studies at young Swedish universities, i.e. those established after 1977. The Foundation's key initiatives are the HÖG and KK programmes, which facilitate knowledge dissemination and the development of cooperation between universities and industry. Since its foundation in 1994, KKstiftelsen has invested approximately SEK 7.8 billion into more than 2,100 projects. Although there is a longstanding tradition of cooperation between universities and large enterprises, research commercialisation efforts (spinoffs, patenting, licensing) are relatively new. In recent years, Swedish universities have expanded their business support opportunities by creating and bolstering auxiliary structures.
Uppsala University, Sweden's oldest institution of higher education is a good example. Data for 2018 shows that the university actively cooperated with pri vate and public actors as well as with civil society institutions. Uppsala Univer sity is engaged in dynamic cooperation with the business community and public organisations, such as, for example, Swedish National Veterinary Institute, Med ical Products Agency, Geological Survey of Sweden, the Uppsala municipality, or the Gotland region. The university is part of a life sciences cluster initiative, which brings together five more universities, hundreds of companies, university clinics, and supporting departments. The university has launched the UU Innova tion programme to support commercialisation and cooperation with the business community. The university's successful integration with the real sector of the economy is largely a result of its efficient spinoff projects. In 2018, forty-two stu dents of Uppsala University founded their own companies, whereas the number of alumni in Uppsala's global graduates network exceeded 24 thousand people. As a coowner of companies specialising in biotech, life science, space technol ogy, renewable energy, social science, and the humanities, Uppsala University is an impressive example of a university pursuing the third mission agenda.

Stakeholder interactions at Russian universities: the Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University
The third mission suggests broadening the social functions of a university as a social institution as well as its engagement in the regional, national, and global agenda through innovation, sociocultural projects, and training specialists for in dustry. Basic documents of an institution of higher education should incorporate stakeholder interests.
Since 2010, the Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University (IKBFU) has pur sued a policy of developing the socioeconomic potential of its region. This pol icy was reflected in the Development Programme for the Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University from 2011 to 2020 established by the resolution of the Gov ernment of the Russian Federation. According to this document, the strategic goal of the university is to contribute to the socioeconomic development of both the Kaliningrad region and Russia's NorthWest by offering highquality graduate training and developing research potential. The socioeconomic development of the region focuses on creating an intellectual economy, the key to which is human capital spurring the development of innovation infrastructure. The university's participation in that process is considered in terms of academic mobility and the development of priority research and technology areas. A 2011 cooperation agree ment between the IKBFU and the Government of the Kaliningrad region, which is the key stakeholder, lists the following shared interests: creating a favourable social, innovative, and business climate; making the Kaliningrad region compet itive in the Baltic region; working towards a stronger tourism and recreation in dustry; pursuing an effective industrial policy; building an adequate transport and energy infrastructure; ensuring access to stateoftheart information technology and communications infrastructure; improving the efficiency of public adminis tration in the region; promoting the federal university in Russia's exclave.
The R&D departments of the IKBFU are cooperating with forty large and small enterprises. Among them are regional companies (MiratorgZapad, Khrabrovo Airport, Kalinigradgazavtomatika) and industrial research organisations (An droid Technology, Technopolis GSGroup, and the Observer group specialising in technology for people with special needs). The two latter companies have col laborated as industrial partners with the Functional Nanomaterials centre and the Laboratory for Neurobiology and Medical Physics to apply for megagrants. In 2016, the IKBFU completed 45 tasks under contracts with regional enterprises (R&D efforts are totalling 11.5 million roubles).
The university is a leader in technological and infrastructural support for the innovative development of the Kaliningrad exclave. It has a major role in train ing specialists for education, tourism, law, healthcare, spatial planning, nature management and environment protection, information technology, sports, trans lation and interpreting, transport logistics, the media, etc. The key goals of the university are closer integration into the regional space, stable interaction chan nels between the university and public, non-governmental, and for-profit socially responsible organisations, as well as innovation and technology transfer.
Stakeholder engagement platforms include regular and ad hoc popular sci ence events (science picnics, popular science lectures) ensuring communication between the IKBFU's researchers and the local community; debate clubs set up by the university in collaboration with the media and NGOs, including those fo cusing on political problems formulated by external partners; resource centres at schools and companies for training the personnel and organising student intern ships; law and other clinics where students practice in assisting community mem bers; education and culture committees and councils comprising the university administration and university experts (Culture Committee under the Government of the Kaliningrad region, College of Educators, Rectors Council); platforms for communication between the regional administration and members of business associations (Kaliningrad Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Baltic Business Club); societyfocused events (Civil Forum, regional conferences).
Projects are an efficient tool to ensure stable interactions between the uni versity and the regional community. One of them is the Welcome centre, which acquaints students from other countries and regions with the university and the city. There are social collaborations with foundations, foster care institutions, and centres for teaching retirees computer skills, legal literacy, and basics of healthy lifestyle; volunteer rehabilitation projects offering art and drama ther apy to children with special needs; cultural projects focusing on the Soviet past; patriotic civil projects commemorating the victory in the Great Patriotic War; environmental projects on the Curonian Spit; contests for gifted children (school media awards held in collaboration with the West Press media group). To turn such projects into life, the university established a student initiative cen tre, which seeks to bring together best social innovation practices and stream line interactions between academia, industry, and government in line with the triple helix model.
The university's interactions with stakeholders are guided by three core prin ciples: project orientation; commitment to openness and dialogue; computeri sation and IT literacy. These three pillars create the space of technological and social innovation in the Kaliningrad region, contribute to a comfortable environ ment for fostering human capital, and build public confidence in the intensive development of the university.

Stakeholder interactions at Russian universities: Lomonosov Northern (Arctic) Federal University
An effective mechanism for university-stakeholder interactions should take into account common interests and available resources. Stakeholder interests should be included in the programme documents of educational institutions. The development programme of the Lomonosov Northern (Arctic) Federal University (NAFU) sets the goals that are well in line with the interests of its key stakehold ers: the advancement of Russia's interests in the Arctic; the preparation of trained specialists for Russia's European North and the Arctic; comprehensive interdisci plinary Arctic research in collaboration with national and international partners.
The law of the Arkhangelsk region On Governmental Support for the North ern (Arctic) Federal University lists interests shared by the university and its major stakeholder, the region: to create the industry's demand for research; to encourage civil officers of Arkhangelsk executive authorities to hold theoretical and practical classes with NAFU students of relevant fields; to create opportuni ties for NAFU students and staff to take internships at the executive bodies of the Arkhangelsk region and other organisations. 2 The shared interests of the university, prospective employers, and NGOs are the foundation of over 140 agreements concluded between the university and regional organisations and NGOs. Among university's partners are such large companies, as the Arkhangelsk Pulp and Paper Mill, the Zvyozdochka shiprepair facility, Rosneft, AGD Diamonds, the Arkhangelsk Algae Processing Plant.
Relationships between the university and its employees are regulated by em ployment contracts and a collective agreement between the NAFU administration and staff. Students sign agreements with the university administration.
To advance the common shared interests of the university and its stakeholders it is necessary to build a model of stakeholder participation in university admin istration.
A decision-making mechanism that takes into account the influence of key stakeholders (an external advisory body, administration, faculty, students, and alumni) has been proposed in a study focusing on stakeholder engagement in university governance [32].
There is an external supervisory board that has the role of a 'voice from the outside'. Neither the university staff nor its students can be members of this body. Committed to the development of the university, the board takes into account the needs of society and the market as well as deals with strategic and financial issues. The administration solves the current university problems and decides how to use financial resources. It brings together the rector and vice-rectors for priority areas.
The faculty determine most academic quality parameters: the content of cur ricula, requirements for dissertations, and training and assessment standards. Members of that group take an active part in framing institutional and payment policies.
Students and alumni discuss various aspects of student life at the university: teaching standards, food, and accommodation. Alumni are welcome to weigh in on key changes taking place at the university and participate in university gov ernance.
According to the federal law On Education in the Russian Federation, edu cational institutions set up collegiate administrative bodies: the employee con ference and the academic senate. Other possible collegiate governance bodies are supervisory boards, advisory councils, boards of overseers, etc. 3 The most influential stakeholders get engaged in university administration this way, for instance, by including their representatives into the supervisory boards.
The NAFU Supervisory Board includes the governor, the deputy minister of education and science of the Russian Federation, the head of the Union of In dustrialists and Entrepreneurs of the Arkhangelsk region, directors of the larg est regional companies, a representative of the Moscow school of management (Skolkovo), and the head of a major broadcasting company. By participating in the work of the Supervisory Board, stakeholders may directly influence decisions relating to the university development strategy (particularly, changes to the char ter), opening of new branches, and financial and property issues.
Russian laws regulate the participation of student and staff associations in uni versity governance. In particular, broad rights are vested in trade unions, which can influence the adoption of local regulations on employment relationships, pay ment, the learning environment, and student accommodation. These functions are performed by the unions of the NAFU faculty and students.
The law On Education in the Russian Federation permits the creation of student councils, which represent the interests of students. The NAFU Student Council discusses the prospects of university development. It has a voice at the university's annual public forum, which seeks faculty, student, alumni, and vet eran engagement in identifying and pursuing priority development areas, finding and supporting promising ideas and projects, creating conditions for professional, artistic, and social self-fulfilment.
The NAFU Alumni Association provides financial assistance to the university, contributes to streamlining interactions with applicants and employers, and influ ences the framing of corresponding university policies.
A remarkable new tool to articulate the interests of the academic staff is the NAFU Assembly of Professors. Its meetings discuss strategic problems of the university and make proposals on educational, research, and social policies. NAFU is a good example of employing various approaches to coordinate stake holder engagement models with university governance.

Conclusions
Although most universities have embraced the need for stakeholder engage ment, there are certain problems that complicate the implementation of the third mission, i.e. the participation of universities in developing the spaces of their re gions. In Russia, the tradition of university-community engagement is severely lacking. Universities remain closed to society and focus solely on research and education [33, p. 119]. For many universities, contributing to community devel opment is a new baffling area, which is perceived as an additional burden rather than a growth opportunity.
In our opinion, the major problems in organising effective university-stake holder interactions are as follows: • lack of systemic approach to stakeholder engagement, where systemic work is replaced by ad hoc contacts and formal procedures; • rigidity, or the inability to adapt to stakeholder interests; • lack of continuous analysis of stakeholder relationships; no room for dis cussion and calibration; • absence of mechanisms for stakeholders to influence university gover nance (this can be done only the state and, sometimes, large companies).
Based on our analysis, we constructed a matrix of external and internal uni versity stakeholders with their mutual connections and shared interest taken into account (table 2). Baltic region universities have been implementing the third mission with vary ing success. While overall the third mission performance of Polish universities may not seem impressive, their active participation in the regional development of the Pomeranian voivodeship has brought about a shift in the situation. The same holds true for Vilnius University, where the third mission agenda is more visible in collaborations with the business community than in regional engage ment. Sweden has achieved the best results among the analysed states, since the country has long been committed to the entrepreneurial university model, and there are many institutions and programmes concerned with the third mission. Uppsala University is a good example of how a university's social engagement translates into regional development. The lack of experience in social engage ment is what prevents Polish and Lithuanian universities from attaining better education quality and organising continuing education. Social engagement trans lates into technology transfer, which benefits both the university and the region al community. The above model can be applied to contemporary approaches to managing Russian organisations of higher education in terms of third mission implementation. The sooner the universities embrace the need for a clear stake holder interaction policy, the more resources for development they will have.