Competitive Advantage for the Forest-based Sector in the Future Bioeconomy – research question priority


  • Eric Hansen Oregon State University
  • Hans Fredrik Hoen Hans Fredrik Hoen Professor Forest Economics and Management Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management Norwegian University of Life Sciences POBox 5003 N-1432 Ås Norway
  • Erlend Nybakk Kristiania University College


bioeconomy, competitive advantage, Delphi, research questions


A multi-stage Deplhi-study was undertaken to explore key research questions and priorities regarding competitive advantage in the bioeconomy for the forest-based sector from the perspective or Nordic forest economics researchers. The study started with a brainstorming event undertaken in plenum among the 62 participants at the Biennial meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics (SSFE) at Oscarsborg, Norway 26th-27th of May, 2016. This was followed up by a two-round Delphi-study, with the first round in August-September 2016 and the second round in November 2016. The initial brainstorming during the SSFE 2016 meeting resulted in five named categories of key future research questions; Innovation & Innovation Systems, Collaboration, Culture, Consumers/Customers, Environmental Scanning and with a sixth category termed Miscellaneous. In a first Delphi-round respondents were asked to add new questions, edit or delete existing questions, and propose category changes. In the second Delphi-round respondents were asked to give priority to categories, sub-categories and individual research questions. Overall, research questions relating to policies for innovation and consumer attitudes/preferences received the highest priority. Collaboration, a highly visible topic in the bioeconomy discourse, received surprisingly low priority, especially given its sparse coverage in the existing literature.

Author Biographies

Hans Fredrik Hoen, Hans Fredrik Hoen Professor Forest Economics and Management Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management Norwegian University of Life Sciences POBox 5003 N-1432 Ås Norway

Professor Forest Economics and Management

Faculty of Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management

Norwegian University of Life Sciences

POBox 5003

N-1432 Ås




Erlend Nybakk, Kristiania University College

Professor of Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Kristiania University College

PB 1190 Sentrum, 0107, Oslo


Aasetre, J. (2006). Perceptions of communication in Norwegian forest management. Forest Policy and Economics, 8(1), 81-92.

Albert, S. (2007). Transition to a bio-economy: A community development strategy discussion. Journal of rural and community development, 2(2).

Bull L, Hansen E, Jenkin B (2015) Maximising the potential of Australia’s forests – collaborating and innovating to realise the opportunity. Workshop Report and Response to the Forest Industry Advisory Council’s Strategic Directions Issues Paper. Lynea Advisory. Melbourne Australia. 25 pages.

Bull, L., & Ferguson, I. (2006). Factors influencing the success of wood product innovations in Australia and New Zealand. Forest policy and economics, 8(7), 742-750.

Chambost V, McNutt J, Stuart PR (2009) Partnerships for successful enterprise transformation of forest industry companies implementing the forest biorefinery. Pulp Pap. Can 110(5):19-24

Chambost V, McNutt J, Stuart PR (2008). Guided tour: implementing the forest biorefinery (FBR) at existing pulp and paper mills. Pulp Pap Can 109(7-8):19-27

Duchesne, L. C., & Wetzel, S. (2003). The bioeconomy and the forestry sector: changing markets and new opportunities. The Forestry Chronicle, 79(5), 860-864.

EC 2011, Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe. European Commission, COM/2011/571.

FSTP (Forest-based Sector Technology Platform. (undated). Horizons – Vision 2030 for the European Forest-based Sector. Last Accessed on January 1, 2017.

Gabrielsson, H., C. Hagström-Näsi, T. Jaatinen, K. Järvinen, T. Leppä, & J. Turunen. 2010. The World’s Leading Forest Cluster 2030. Last Accessed on January 1, 2017.

Gold, S., & Rubik, F. (2009). Consumer attitudes towards timber as a construction material and towards timber frame houses–selected findings of a representative survey among the German population. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(2), 303-309.

Gupta, S., Malhotra, N. K., Czinkota, M., & Foroudi, P. (2016). Marketing innovation: a consequence of competitiveness. Journal of Business Research. 69:5671-5681.

Hansen, E., Knowles, C., & Larson, K. (2015). A modified lead-user approach for new product development: an illustration from the US of a marketing research tool for the forest industry. International Wood Products Journal, 6(3), 131-137.

Hansen, E., Dibrell, C., & Down, J. (2006). Market orientation, strategy, and performance in the primary forest industry. Forest Science, 52(3), 209-220.

Hatcher, T., & Colton, S. (2007). Using the internet to improve HRD research: The case of the web-based Delphi research technique to achieve content validity of an HRD-oriented measurement. Journal of European Industrial Training, 31(7), 570-587.

Holopainen, J. M., Häyrinen, L., & Toppinen, A. (2014). Consumer value dimensions for sustainable wood products: results from the Finnish retail sector. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29(4), 378-385.

Hurmekoski, E., & Hetemäki, L. (2013). Studying the future of the forest sector: Review and implications for long-term outlook studies. Forest Policy and Economics, 34, 17-29.

Hämäläinen, S., Näyhä, A., & Pesonen, H. L. (2011). Forest biorefineries–A business opportunity for the Finnish forest cluster. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(16), 1884-1891.

Iraldo, F., Testa, F., Melis, M., & Frey, M. (2011). A literature review on the links between environmental regulation and competitiveness. Environmental Policy and Governance, 21(3), 210-222.

Keeney, S. Hasson, S., & McKenna, H. 2011. The Delphi Technique in Nursing and Health Research. Wiley-Blackwell. West Sussex, UK. 198 pp.

Kleinschmit, D., Lindstad, B. H., Thorsen, B. J., Toppinen, A., Roos, A., & Baardsen, S. (2014). Shades of green: a social scientific view on bioeconomy in the forest sector. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29(4), 402-410.

Korhonen, J., Toppinen, A., Hurmekoski, E., & Hansen, E. (2017). Review on competitiveness at the firm level: assessment and implications of manufacturing business under change. White Paper. University of Helsinki.

Kozak, R. A., Cohen, D. H., Lerner, J., & Bull, G. Q. (2004). Western Canadian consumer attitudes towards certified value-added wood products: an exploratory assessment. Forest Products Journal, 54(9), 21.

Kubeczko, K., & Rametsteiner, E. (2002). Innovation and entrepreneurship—a new topic for forest related research. EFI-INNOFORCE discussion paper I and IFSPE discussion paper P/2002-1, University of Agricultural Sciences, Vienna.

Kutnar, A. 2016. Environmental Use Kärnä of Wood Resources. In, Kutnar, A., & Muthu, S. S. (Eds.). (2016). Environmental Impacts of Traditional and Innovative Forest-based Bioproducts. Springer.

Kärnä, J., Hansen, E., & Juslin, H. (2003). Social responsibility in environmental marketing planning. European Journal of Marketing, 37(5/6), 848-871.

Landeta, J. (2006). Current validity of the Delphi method in social sciences. Technological forecasting and social change, 73(5), 467-482.

Laukkanen, V., Siimekselä, M., Leavengood, S., & Hansen, E. (2016). Best practices in capturing employee creativity: forest sector firms in the USA and Finland. International Wood Products Journal, 1-8.

Li, N., & Toppinen, A. (2011). Corporate responsibility and sustainable competitive advantage in forest-based industry: Complementary or conflicting goals?. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(2), 113-123.

Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (2002). The Delphi Method. Techniques and applications, 53.

Ludvig, A., Tahvanainen, V., Dickson, A., Evard, C., Kurttila, M., Cosovic, M., ... & Weiss, G. (2016). The Practice of Entrepreneurship in the Non-Wood forest products sector: Support for Innovation on private forest land. Forest Policy and Economics, 66, 31-37.

Marchetti, M., Vizzarri, M., Lasserre, B., Sallustio, L., & Tavone, A. (2015). Natural capital and bioeconomy: challenges and opportunities for forestry. Annals of Silvicultural Research, 38(2), 62-73.

Näyhä, A., & Pesonen, H. L. (2012). Diffusion of forest biorefineries in Scandinavia and North America. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(6), 1111-1120.

Ollikainen, M. (2014). Forestry in bioeconomy – smart green growth for the humankind. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29(4), 360-366.

Ollonqvist, P. (2008). Business and Innovations in Wood Frame Construction–Cross-Sectoral Policy Challenges in Finland. In of the Biennial Meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics Lom, Norway, 6th-9th April 2008 (p. 144).

Panwar, R., & Hansen, E. N. (2009). A process for identifying social and environmental issues: a case of the US forest products manufacturing industry. Journal of Public Affairs, 9(4), 323-336.

Pelli, P., Haapala, A., & Pykäläinen, J. (2017). Services in the forest-based bioeconomy–analysis of European strategies. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 1-9.

Pfau, S. F., Hagens, J. E., Dankbaar, B., & Smits, A. J. (2014). Visions of sustainability in bioeconomy research. Sustainability, 6(3), 1222-1249.

Pätäri, S., Tuppura, A., Toppinen, A., & Korhonen, J. (2016). Global sustainability megaforces in shaping the future of the European pulp and paper industry towards a bioeconomy. Forest Policy and Economics, 66, 38-46.

Pätäri S, Kyläheiko K, Sandström J (2011) Opening up new strategic options in the pulp and paper industry: Case biorefineries. For Policy and Econ 13(6):456-464

Rametsteiner, E., & Weiss, G. (2006). Assessing policies from a systems perspecitve—Experiences with applied innovation systems analysis and implications for policy evaluation. Forest Policy and Economics, 8(5), 564-576.

Rametsteiner, E., & Weiss, G. (2005). The role of innovation systems in non-timber forest products and services development in Central Europe. Икономически изследвания, (1), 23-36.

Rasmussen, C. C., & Nybakk, E. (2016). Growth drivers in low technology micro firms. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 20(3-4), 258-277.

Romero, D., Flores, M., Vallejo, C., & Molina, A. (2009, June). Towards a novel living Lab Model for sustainable innovation in the construction industry. In Technology Management Conference (ICE), 2009 IEEE International (pp. 1-9). IEEE.

Roos. A. 2016. Business—Bioproducts in the Bioeconomy. In, Kutnar, A., & Muthu, S. S. (Eds.). (2016). Environmental Impacts of Traditional and Innovative Forest-based Bioproducts. Springer.

Roos A, Stendahl M (2015) The role of the forest sector in the emerging bio-economy. In, Forests, business and sustainability. In, Panwar R, Hansen E, Kozak R (eds). Taylor & Francis Books

Rusko, R. (2011). Exploring the concept of coopetition: A typology for the strategic moves of the Finnish forest industry. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 311-320.

Räty, T., Lindqvist, D., Nuutinen, T., Nyrud, A. Q., Perttula, S., Riala, M., ... & Wang, L. (2012). Communicating the environmental performance of wood products. Working Pap Finnish For Res Inst, 230, 71.

Simpson, E., Goyal, N. K., Dhepyasuwan, N., Flaherman, V. J., Chung, E. K., Von Kohorn, I., Burgos, A., & Taylor, J. (2014). Prioritizing a research agenda: a Delphi study of the Better Outcomes through Research for Newborns (BORN) network. Hospital pediatrics, 4(4), 195-202.

Spetic, W., Kozak, R. A., & Vidal, N. G. (2016). Critical factors of competitiveness for the British Columbia secondary wood products industry. Bioproducts Business. 1(2), 13-31.

Staffas, L., Gustavsson, M., & McCormick, K. (2013). Strategies and policies for the bioeconomy and bio-based economy: An analysis of official national approaches. Sustainability, 5(6), 2751-2769.

Stefanidis, D., Arora, S., Parrack, D. M., Hamad, G. G., Capella, J., Grantcharov, T., Urbach, D.R., Scott, D.J., Jones, D.B. & Association for Surgical Education Simulation Committee. (2012). Research priorities in surgical simulation for the 21st century. The American Journal of Surgery, 203(1), 49-53.

Tiernan, J., Cook, A., Geh, I., George, B., Magill, L., Northover, J., Verjee, A., Wheeler, J., & Fearnhead, N. (2014). Use of a modified Delphi approach to develop research priorities for the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. Colorectal Disease, 16(12), 965-970.

Toppinen, A., Korhonen, J., Hurmekoski, E., & Hansen, E. (2017a). Competitiveness in the bioeconomy. Unpublished book chapter.

Toppinen, A., Pätäri, S., Tuppura, A., & Jantunen, A. (2017b). The European pulp and paper industry in transition to a bio-economy: A Delphi study. Futures, 88, 1-14.

Toppinen, A., Wan, M., & Lähtinen, K. (2013). Strategic orientations in the global forest sector. The Global Forest Sector: Changes, Practices, and Prospects. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 405-428.

Wilson, E. (2009). Company-led approaches to conflict resolution in the forest sector. Forest Dialogue. Research Paper. The Forests Dialog Publication.63 pp.

White, W., Lunnan, A., Nybakk, E., & Kulisic, B. (2013). The role of governments in renewable energy: The importance of policy consistency. Biomass and bioenergy, 57, 97-105.






Empirical Manuscripts