The reviewed paper by Ms. Olga Kalandey attempts an important and unfortunately underdeveloped problem of business associations’ position in GR and lobbying activities, which demonstrates the author’s both boldness and maturity through her studying the problem with empiric tools. The research object is business associations’ activities in GR and lobbying analyzed with both secondary data and primary sources—the 16 expert interviews held by the author that constitute the research base. The author’s goal was to find business association’s role as a GR and lobbying subject’s with 58 reference sources (leading contemporary researchers’ works in both Russian and English, normative documents, publications of business associations, mass media, and public authorities), as well as 80 pages of appendices—materials of the survey “Relations between Businesses and Authorities: Associationalizational Aspect” held by the author and thoroughly and vividly presented in the paper. Based on the authenticity report, the paper is genuine and demonstrates the author’s maturity as a researcher.  The paper’s structure and contents fully correspond to the subject and tasks formulated by the author. The first chapter covers theoretical aspects of business associations as GR and lobbying subjects by analyzing major concepts and approaches of the industry, typology of its players, and comparative study of the research object in and outside Russia. The second chapter presents results of the author’s empiric research. The author zealously sticks to St. Petersburg GR School’s positions and thus builds an argumentation edifice for her conclusions made based on the survey results.  Unfortunately, it is as late as when approaching the survey in the second chapter when the author specifies that it covered only local business associations. The scope is anyway well reasoned with St. Petersburg’s role as the second most populated and important region in Russia and totally complies with requirements to a bachelor’s degree paper, but it might have been more appropriate to restrict the paper subject formulation respectively. The pool of the interviewed experts seems to be too limited as well—the overwhelming majority of them represent the very object of the research, business associations, thus leading the author to her conclusions based primarily on the business associations’ self-estimation. I believe it would have been rather beneficial to balance those opinions with those of businesspeople who utilize business associations in their GR and lobbying activities. Nonetheless, these drawbacks do not derogate the high quality of the research, but rather challenge the author to develop the subject, should she decide for continuing her studies.  As a conclusion, I hereby testify that Ms. Kalandey’s paper fully corresponds to the requirements to such papers and should be marked high if the author successfully defends it.