Current and future research themes in forest sector competitiveness: Case study of research orientations at the University of Helsinki

Brent Matthies, Jaana Korhonen, Anne Toppinen

Abstract


Megaforces such as climate change, and market dynamics are impacting the development of product and
service markets in the forest sector, driving renewal and reorientation. The University of Helsinki (UofH) has
produced leading academic research, through global collaborations, on managing that transition by firms
within the Nordic forest sector. To further understanding of how much and in what ways their research is aligned
to forest sector developments, a case study was conducted assessing (1) the Nordic industrial forest context, (2)
the corresponding research contributions and collaborations from 2014–2019, and (3) future research orientations.
A conceptual lens of forest-value chain sustainability from the perspective of industrial competitiveness was
applied. Research design included three questions for the aspects noted, investigated sequentially to triangulate
and validate results. The results highlighted similarities and divergences between current and future research
orientations and between researcher perspectives and the actions of incumbent forestry firms. Together, these
indicate gaps in the ambition level required to support renewal in industrial competitiveness. Closing them will
require a radical transformation, relying on proactive management and investment toward new product and
service development, in order for forest industry firms to become champions in the circular and bioeconomy
paradigms.


Keywords


Literature review, sustainability transition, bioeconomy, Finland, industrial competitiveness, forest sector

Full Text:

PDF

References


Academy of Finland. 2014. Biotalous: Kohti kestävää kasvua – näkökulmia biotalouden tutkimustarpeisiin (In Finnish). [Bioeconomy – Toward sustainable growth] Accessed on: 15.08.2019. Available from: https://www.aka.fi/globalassets/42julkaisut/biotalouswww.pdf

Alekhina, M, Mikkonen, KS, Alén, R, Tenkanen, M, & Sixta, H. 2014. Carboxymethylation of alkali extracted xylan for preparation of bio-based packaging films. Carbohydrate Polymers 100, 89–96. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.03.048

Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17(1), 99–120. doi: 10.1016/S0742-3322(00)17018-4

Bouwman, H, Carlsson, C, Carlsson, J, Nikou, S, Sell, A, & Walden, P. 2014. How Nokia failed to nail the Smartphone market. 25th European Regional ITS Conference, Brussels, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).

Boschma, R. 2015. Towards an evolutionary perspective on regional resilience. Regional Studies 49(5), 733–751. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2014.959481

CWUR-Center for World University Rankings. 2017. World University Rankings, Forestry. Accessed on: 15.12.2019. Available from: https://cwur.org/2017/subjects.php#Forestry

CWTS-Centre for Science and Technology Studies. 2018. Research performance analysis for the University of Helsinki 2012- 2016/17. Accessed on: 03.09.2019. Available from: https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/298733/FI_2018_HelsinkiUniv_report_final.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Dahlbo, H, Bachér, J, Lähtinen, K, Jouttijärvi, T, Suoheimo, P, Mattila, T, Sironen, S, Myllymaa, T, & Saramäki, K. 2015. Construction and demolition waste management–a holistic evaluation of environmental performance. Journal of Cleaner Production 107, 333–341. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.073

D’Amato, D, Droste, N, Allen, B., Kettunen, M, Lähtinen, K., Korhonen, J, Leskinen, P, Matthies, BD, & Toppinen, A. 2017. Green, circular, bio economy: A comparative analysis of sustainability avenues. Journal of Cleaner Production 168, 716–734. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.053

D’Amato, D, Korhonen, J, & Toppinen, A. 2019. Circular, Green, and Bio Economy: How Do Companies in Land-Use Intensive Sectors Align with Sustainability Concepts? Ecological Economics 158, 116–133. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.12.026

DiMaggio, P, & Powel, W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48, 147–160. doi: 10.2307/2095101

Elsevier. 2019. Topic Prominence in Science FAQs. Accessed on: 09.09.2019. Available from: https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/28428/supporthub/scival/

European Commission. 2012. Innovating for sustainable growth: a bioeconomy for Europe. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions, Brussels. Accessed on: 15.09.2019. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/official-strategy_en.pdf

European Commission. 2018a. Bioeconomy: the European way to use our natural resources Action plan 2018. Accessed on: 15.10.2019. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/research/bioeconomy/pdf/ec_bioeconomy_booklet_2018.pdf

European Commission. 2018b. A sustainable Bioeconomy for Europe: Strengthening the connection between economy, society and the environment. Accessed on: 15.10.2019. Available from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0673&from=EN

Franzini, F, Toivonen, R, & Toppinen, A. 2018. Why not wood? Benefits and barriers of wood as a multistory construction material: Perceptions of municipal civil servants from Finland. Buildings 8(11), p.159. doi: 10.3390/buildings8110159

Geels, FW. 2014. Reconceptualising the co-evolution of firms-in-industries and their environments: Developing an inter-disciplinary Triple Embeddedness Framework. Research Policy 43(2). doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.006

Guerrero, JE, & Hansen, E. 2018. Cross-sector collaboration in the forest products industry: a review of the literature. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 48 (11), 1269–1278. doi: 10.1139/cjfr-2018-0032

Haasnoot, M, Kwakkel, JH, Walker, WE, & ter Maat, J. 2013. Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Global Environmental Change 23(2), 485–498. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.006

Hurmekoski, E, Jonsson, R, Korhonen, J, Jänis, J, Mäkinen, M, Leskinen, P, & Hetemäki, L. 2018. Diversification of the forest industries: role of new wood-based products. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 48(12), 1417–1432. doi: 10.1139/cjfr-2018-0116

Jeglum, JK, & Scarratt, JB. 1989. Forestry and forest-industry education in Finland. The Forestry Chronicle 65 (6). doi: 10.5558/tfc65405-6

Kaptein, M, & Parvinen, P. 2015. Advancing e-commerce personalization: Process framework and case study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 19(3), 7–33. doi: 10.1080/10864415.2015.1000216

Korhonen, S, & Niemelä, J. 2005. A conceptual analysis of capabilities: Identifying and classifying sources of competitive advantage in the wood industry. The Finnish Journal of Business Economics 54(1), 11–47.

Korhonen, J, Pätäri, S, Toppinen, A, & Tuppura, A. 2015. The role of environmental regulation in the future competitiveness of the pulp and paper industry: the case of the sulfur emissions directive in Northern Europe. Journal of Cleaner Production 108, 864–872. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.003

Korhonen, J, Hurmekoski, E, Hansen, E, & Toppinen, A. 2018a. Firm-level competitiveness in the forest industries: review and research implications in the context of bioeconomy strategies. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 48(2), 141–152. doi:10.1139/cjfr-2017-0219

Korhonen, J, Giurca, A, Brockhaus, M, & Toppinen, A. 2018b. Actors and politics in Finland’s forest-based bioeconomy network. Sustainability 10(10), p.3785. doi: 10.3390/su10103785

López-Gamero, MD, & Molina-Azorín, JF. 2016. Environmental management and firm competitiveness: the joint analysis of external and internal elements. Long Range Planning 49(6), 746–763. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2015.12.002

Lovrić, M, Lovrić, N, & Mavsar, R. 2020. Mapping forest-based bioeconomy research in Europe. Forest Policy and Economics 110, 101874.

(LUKE) Natural Resources Institute Finland. 2019. Finnish Bioeconomy in Numbers. Accessed on: 15.09.2019. Available from: https://www.luke.fi/en/natural-resources/finnish-bioeconomy-in-numbers/

Lähtinen, K, Guan, Y, Li, N, & Toppinen, A. 2016a. Biodiversity and ecosystem services in supply chain management in the global forest industry. Ecosystem Services 21, 130–140. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.07.006

Lähtinen, K, Toppinen, A, Mikkilä, M, Toivio, M, & Suur-Uski, O. 2016b. Corporate responsibility reporting in promoting social license to operate in forestry and sawmilling industries. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research 89(5), 525–541. doi: 10.1093/forestry/cpv055

Malkamäki, A, D’Amato, D, Hogarth, NJ, Kanninen, M, Pirard, R, Toppinen, A, & Zhou, W. 2018. A systematic review of the socio-economic impacts of large-scale tree plantations, worldwide. Global Environmental Change 53, 90–103. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.09.001

Matthies, BD, Kalliokoski, T, Ekholm, T, Hoen, HF, & Valsta, LT. 2015. Risk, reward, and payments for ecosystem services: A portfolio approach to ecosystem services and forestland investment. Ecosystem Services 16, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.08.006

Mattila, O, & Roos, A. 2014. Service logics of providers in the forestry services sector: evidence from Finland and Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics 43, 10–17. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.03.003

Meyer, J, & Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83, 340–363. doi: 10.1086/226550

Oinas, P, & Lagendijk, A. 2017. Towards understanding proximity, distance and diversity in economic interaction and local development. In Proximity, Distance and Diversity, pp. 307–33. Routledge.

Piotrowski, S, Carus, M, & Carrez, D. 2019. European Bioeconomy in Figures 2008 – 2016. Accessed on: 15.10.2019. Available from: https://biconsortium.eu/sites/biconsortium.eu/files/documents/European%20Bioeconomy%20in%20Figures%202008%20-%202016_0.pdf

(PwC) PricewaterhouseCoopers. 2016. Global Forest, Paper and Packaging Survey. Accessed on: 28.08.2019. Available from: https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/assets/pwc-annual-fpp-industry-survey-2016-10.pdf

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. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2015.10.009

Pöyry Inc. 2015. World fibre outlook up to 2030. Pöyry Inc., Vantaa, Finland. Accessed on: 15.10.2019. Available from: https://www.poyry.com/world-fibre-outlook-2030

Ronzon, T, Santini, F, & M’Barek, R. 2015. The Bioeconomy in the European Union in Numbers. Facts and Figures on Biomass, Turnover and Employment. European Commission, Joint Research Centre. Institute for Prospective Technological Studies: Seville, Spain. Accessed on: 12.09.2019. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/ files/JRC97789%20Factsheet_Bioeconomy_final.pdf

Räty, T, Toppinen, A, Roos, A, Riala, M, & Nyrud, AQ. 2016. Environmental policy in the Nordic wood product industry: Insights into firms’ strategies and communication. Business Strategy and the Environment 25(1), 10–27. doi: 10.1002/bse.1853

Schrier, M. 2012. Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. Sage, Los Angeles, USA, p. 280.

SciVal. 2020. Accessed on: 01.15.2020. Available from: https://www.scival.com/

Stern, T, Ranacher, L, Mair, C, Berghäll, S, Lähtinen, K, Forsblom, M, & Toppinen, A. 2018. Perceptions on the importance of forest sector innovations: biofuels, biomaterials, or niche products? Forests 9 (5), p. 255. doi: 10.3390/f9050255

Soimakallio, S, Saikku, L, Valsta, L, & Pingoud, K. 2016. Climate Change Mitigation Challenge for Wood Utilization: The Case of Finland. Environmental Science and Technology 50(10), 5127–5134. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b00122

Teece, DJ, Pisano, G, & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and Strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18(7), 509–533.

TEM. 2014. Sustainable growth from bioeconomy. The Finnish Bioeconomy Strategy. Helsinki: Edita Prima Ltd.

Toppinen, AMK, Korhonen, JE, Hurmekoski, E, & Hansen, E. 2017a. What makes a European forest-based bioeconomy competitive? In Towards a sustainable European forest-based bioeconomy - Assessment and the way forward, ed. Winkel, G. European Forest Institute (EFI): Joensuu, Finland. Accessed on: 05.08.2019. Available from: https://www.efi.int/sites/default/files/files/publication-bank/2018/efi_wsctu8_2017.pdf

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. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2017.02.002

Toppinen, A, Sauru, M, Pätäri, S, Lähtinen, K, & Tuppura, A. 2019. Internal and external factors of competitiveness shaping the future of wooden multistory construction in Finland and Sweden. Construction Management and Economics 37(4). doi: 10.1080/01446193.2018.1513162

Tuppura, A, Toppinen, A, & Puumalainen, K. 2016. Forest certification and ISO 14001: Current state and motivation in forest companies. Business Strategy and the Environment 25(5), 355–368. doi: 10.1002/bse.1878

Vainio, A, Varho, V, Tapio, P, Pulkka, A, & Paloniemi, R. 2019. Citizens’ images of a sustainable energy transition. Energy 183, 606–616. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2019.06.134

Wang, L, Toppinen, A, & Juslin, H. 2014. Use of wood in green building: a study of expert perspectives from the UK. Journal of Cleaner Production 65, 350–361. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.023

Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 5(2), 171–180. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250050207

Wreford, A, Bayne, K, Edwards, P, & Renwick, A. 2019. Enabling a transformation to a bioeconomy in New Zealand. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 31, 184–199. doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2018.11.005.

Yang, Y, & Konrad, AM. 2011. Understanding diversity management practices: Implications of institutional theory and resource-based theory. Group & Organization Management 36(1). doi: 10.1177/1059601110390997


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.