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

Current and Future Research Themes 
in Forest Sector Competitiveness: 

Case Study of Research Orientations 
at the University of Helsinki

1 Department of Forest sciences, University of Helsinki, Finland
* Corresponding author. Email: anne.toppinen@helsinki.fi

Acknowledgements: We acknowledge valuable insights from the three reviewers 
and Editor of this journal. This study was realized with funding from the Faculty 
of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Helsinki and the Ella and Georg Ehrnrooth 
Foundation (Grant reference no. 190046).

Brent Matthies,1 Jaana Korhonen,1 Anne Toppinen1*

BioProducts Business 5(8), 2020, pp. 87–106.   ISSN 2378-1394  
https://doi.org/10.22382/bpb-2020-008

1. Introduction
The concepts of both the circular and bioeconomy, as 
research paradigms and industrial strategies, imply eco-
nomic growth-based transformation and development 
with varied approaches toward achieving sustainability 
(D’Amato et al. 2017). The concept of “bioeconomy” is 
more closely associated with business-as-usual opera-
tions for the Nordic forest sector and is less reflective of 
expected transformations in society and the economy, 
e.g., to meet the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals 
and the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, than 

circular economy (D’Amato et al. 2017, Guerrero & Hansen 
2018, Stern et al. 2018, Hurmekoski et al. 2018). As such, 
the bioeconomy emphasizes reliance on bio-based re-
sources without linking to upstream or more inclusive 
innovation.

To an extent, the Nordic forestry sector has reflected 
both concepts recently via attempts to mobilize bio-
based resources with greater efficiency and drive product 
and service innovation. Nordic firms use wood-based 
inputs across a breadth of product categories, including, 
e.g., bio-based textiles, wood products and furniture, liq-
uid biofuels, paper, bio-based chemicals, and bio-based 
electricity. However, efforts toward higher value-added 
products have seen mixed results, with a risk of further 
decline in gross value-added production, contradicting 
bioeconomy aspirations (Hurmekoski et al. 2018). This is 
a concern, especially if growing demand is dispropor-
tionately allocated to lower value-added products (e.g., 
pulp) (Pöyry Inc. 2015).



88 BioProducts Business 5(8) 2020

Key drivers for a recent rise in Nordic bioeconomy 
investments are the growing global demand for such 
lower value-added products, e.g., pulp, sawtimber and 
renewable energy, as well as to address the higher factor 
costs in comparison to emerging market producers (e.g., 
Uruguay). Such investments increase the importance of 
securing resource supply and ensuring sustainability 
throughout the value chain. This article examines these 
strategic transformation efforts from the perspective of 
industrial competitiveness – defined here as the overall 
value-creation potential of the forest sector within the 
circular and bioeconomy paradigms, triggering changes 
in products, services, processes and networks. 

An examination of the state of the art in circular and 
bioeconomy forest value chains at country or regional 
levels in the Nordic context was conducted to start – an 
approach with limited research to date (see, e.g. Wreford 
et al. 2019). Thereafter, we examined the state of the art 
in local academic research orientations: their alignment 
and/or divergence in perception from the sector’s current 
transition ambition. This is a novel approach for examin-
ing transition pathways, their potentials and challenges, 
relying on research paradigms and qualitative analysis 
rather than quantitative metrics, e.g., Paris Agreement 
alignment of greenhouse gas emissions trajectories for 
corporations. 

Among the highest geographical concentration of 
forests in Europe, Finland is at the center of a regional 
industrial cluster with head offices for 3 of the 10 largest 
European forestry, pulp and paper firms (by net income 
in 2018 terms) (PwC 2016).1 The strategic push by Finland 
towards circular and bioeconomy development follows 
a period of national economic stagnation linked with 
the structural changes in the global forest product mar-
kets with a trend away from paper use (Bouwman et al. 
2014), where most forest sector firms have sought higher 
value-added innovations to replace the revenue losses 
from declining markets and high costs. Competitiveness 
and sustainability are at the core of Finnish, Nordic and 
European efforts to support renewal and innovation 
in the industrial forestry sector (TEM 2014; European 
Commission 2012, 2018a,b). 

To support implementation of the Finnish Bioeconomy 
Strategy, the Academy of Finland published an R&D re-
port on future research paradigms to map the national 
role in the global bioeconomy (Academy of Finland 2014; 
see Appendix A).2 Key research orientations in the report 
focused on networks, value co-creation and innovation, 

values and perceptions of consumers and individuals, 
supply of raw material in a sustainable manner, inno-
vation and resource efficiency and the need for new 
pathways to ensure both adaptation and adaptability. 
These were later funded in a 10 million euro (MEUR) 
national research programme (BioFuture 2025, 2017-
2020), in short, to support enhanced sustainability and 
industrial competitiveness in Finland through circular 
bioeconomic research. 

The University of Helsinki (UofH) was a major recipient 
of those funds. It has been at the forefront of academic 
research on how industrial forest-sector firms are man-
aging the aforementioned transition and its challenges. 
To further understand how much and in what ways that 
research fit within the theoretical underpinnings of the 
ongoing Nordic industrial forest-based transformation, 
a case study review was conducted concentrating on 
UofH’s research contributions and collaborations during 
2014–2019.3 Three research questions (RQs) were posed 
in this study to sequentially gather results (Figure 1), 
iteratively reviewing and validating new results against 
earlier results, using them toward further research de-
sign in subsequent RQs, and eventually bringing them 
together in a set of final results and discussion themes 
(see Section 4). An appropriate research method was 
selected to investigate each RQ, examining how UofH’s 
research has approached the topic from different geo-
graphic, political, economic and social contexts. This 
review’s results are highly topical, given the national 
and regional importance of the sector for Finland and 
the Nordics in the transition to a sustainable low-carbon 
economy. 

RQ1 set the foundation, including the theoretical 
setting on industrial competitiveness and a review of 
current forest sector market dynamics in the Nordic 
context (i.e., “market review”). Data included statistical 

1 The Finnish bioeconomy contributed EUR 193.3 billion to the national economy 
(12% of total value added) in 2017, growing by approximately 20% between 
2010-2017 (LUKE, 2019). Total value added in the Finnish bioeconomy has 
increased over time, though the effect on employment has been neutral or 
negative (Ronzon et al. 2015, Piotrowski et al. 2019). 

2 The Academy of Finland (2014) report acts as a reference in this review for 
assessing new and interesting research findings on forest sector competitiveness 
in the Finnish geographical and industrial settings during the period of this 
review (2014–2019). 

3 The UofH has been ranked as one of the globally top 5 university level forestry 
faculties, and has a long history of academic research focused specifically on 
forest sector competitiveness (Jeglum & Scarratt 1989, CWUR 2017, CWTS 2018). 
On that basis, it provides a benchmarking case study for assessing academic 
research developments towards the creation of sustainable competitiveness 
within the forest sector and its associated transition. 



Matthies et al.  —  Current and Future Research Themes in Forest Sector Competitiveness 89

and disclosed information on market developments (e.g., 
firm investments). RQ1 results provided the conceptual 
lens for comparing and contrasting, triangulating and 
validating results from RQ2 and 3. For RQ2, a publication 
analysis and in-depth literature review was conducted, 
eventually focusing on the 20 highest-profile articles on 
industrial competitiveness during 2014–2019. RQ3 used 
expert interviews with 10 faculty members, together 
with the literature review, to determine thematic align-
ment or divergences on ambition in the forest sector 
transformation. 

In the next section, we present the theoretical back-
ground on industrial competitiveness in the Finnish 
industrial forest sector based on the outcomes of RQ1. 
Thereafter, an overview of methods and data used this 
case study, focusing on RQs 2 and 3, is provided in Section 
3, supplemented with further description in Appendix 
B. In Section 4, results from the publication analysis and 
four themes based on the results for RQs 2 and 3 are 
presented and discussed. Conclusions are presented in 
Section 5, followed by Limitations in Section 6.

2. Theoretical Setting
Toppinen et al. (2017a) provide a framework for the 
analysis outlining the competitiveness orientations of 
the Finnish industrial forest sector (Figure 2), which is 
used in defining “competitiveness” beyond the common 
concurrent competitiveness measures, such as profitabil-

ity or market share, and emphasizing the importance of 
securing future value creation potential (Korhonen et al. 
2018a). Sustainable value creation potential is built on 
the ability to manage internal (i.e., firm resources) and 
external (i.e., voluntary norms and stakeholders) factors 
that are linked with global sustainability megatrends, as 
well as the policy environment and other considerations 
driving or impacting the emerging range of commercial-
ized forest products and services. As internal factors may 
be partly controlled by the firm, external factors (e.g., 
unpredictability of climate change) take an increasingly 
important role in shaping organizational decisions and 
actions by the firm (Toppinen et al. 2019). 

Key factors in securing sustainable value creation 
potential can be approached from two complementary 
theoretical logics. A resource-based view of the firm (RBV) 
focuses on those characteristics of resources and the 
strategic factor markets from which they are obtained 
to explain firm heterogeneity and sustainable advan-
tage (Wernerfelt 1984, Barney 1991, Lopez-Gamero & 
Molina-Azorín 2016). It considers that resources that are 
valuable, scarce, inimitable, and non-substitutable (VRIN) 
provide enduring firm differentiation and above-normal 
profits and may be viewed as important in the context of 
proactive environmental management by the firm. The 
dynamic capability view (Teece et al. 1997) emerged in 
the 1990s extended the RBV argument by addressing 
how the VRIN resources can be created and how the 

Figure 1. Overview of research questions and corresponding methodologies applied to answer via the case study conception lens (Figure 2).  
Source: Authors.

Research Questions Corresponding 
Methodology

In what ways is the country’s 
position as a global supplier 
of sustainable forest products 
competitive in the “current 
snapshot”?

Market Review

To what extent and in 
what ways is the “current 
orientation” of research in 
selected Faculty aligned with 
the “current snapshot”?

Publication 
Analysis and 

Literature 
Review

In what ways can our 
research best contribute to 
future orientations?

Interviews 
via Interview 
Framework Co

nc
ep

tu
al 

len
s f

or
 a

ss
es

sin
g 

dif
fe

re
nt

 fa
cto

rs
 a

nd
ge

og
ra

ph
ica

l, p
oli

tic
al,

 e
co

no
m

ic 
an

d 
so

cia
l c

on
te

xt
of

 th
e 

ca
se

 st
ud

y

Research Objective:
Case Study on

Academic 
Contributions of a 

Leading Institution in 
Subject Matter



90 BioProducts Business 5(8) 2020

current stock of valuable resources can be refreshed in 
the changing business environments (for a reference 
in the wood industry, see Korhonen & Niemelä 2005). 

Alternatively, institutional theory considers that rules, 
norms, and beliefs are part of the context where eco-
nomic activity occurs and that define or enforce behavior 
viewed as socially acceptable (Meyer & Rowan 1977, 
DiMaggio & Powell 1983, Lopez-Gamero & Molina-Azorín 
2016). For firms, the theory can be linked to organiza-
tional culture, and at the interfirm level, it refers to public 
or regulatory pressures or norms in a specific industry. 
Both the resource-based view and institutional theory 
can be applied to managing the diversifying internal 
and external expectations that are deriving from the 
changing operational environment of firms and indus-
tries (Yang & Konrad 2011). The resource-based view 
focuses on the value creating assets and competencies 
of a firm, while institutional theory considers the firm’s 
capability to support those same assets and competen-
cies. Therefore, external factors create the context where 
resource strategies and decisions occur.

Toppinen et al. (2017a) provide a summary of the 
internal and external competitiveness factors important 
for achieving or maintaining accepted level of sustain-

ability in the context of the bulk and export-driven 
industrial forestry model of the Nordic region, including, 
e.g., good governance of natural resources, solid land 
tenure system, and global societal demand for sustain-
ability. According to those authors, innovation, thus, 
requires a view beyond costs toward high-value-added 
products and services. 

To explore the competitiveness orientations of the 
Finnish industrial forest sector, the two theoretical logics 
are applied, while accounting for the “megaforces” driving 
a transformation toward sustainability and higher value-
added products and services. Mitigating climate change 
and the negative impacts of other external megaforces in-
creasingly requires a radical sustainability transformation, 
as part of a broader forest sectoral renewal. This means 
pursuing diverse and multiple dynamic and adaptive 
pathways, including for resource limitations, informa-
tion flows, and network expansion, to provide strategic 
insights and create resilience (Haasnoot et al. 2013). 

In that context, a “mature” industry, such as the Finnish 
industrial forest sector, should strive to mobilize scarce 
resources toward new radical product and service niches 
by avoiding inward-looking and insular networks. The 
latter can lead to myopic attitudes and potential tech-

Figure 2. European forest bioeconomic industrial competitiveness – A conceptual lens and guide for this study. Source: Adapted from 
Toppinen et al. (2017a).



Matthies et al.  —  Current and Future Research Themes in Forest Sector Competitiveness 91

nological and capability lock-ins (or lock-outs), limiting 
transformability of the sector over a relatively short 
timescale (Geels 2014, Oinas & Lagendijk 2017). As such, 
it is important to reduce cognitive proximity between 
firms, which can limit the flow of new knowledge into 
and its transmission within a network, limiting the po-
tential for renewal (Boschma 2015). Research plays an 
important role in such networks, if it is able to support 
knowledge co-production and transfer that support to 
value proposition development (Korhonen et al. 2018b, 
Lovrić et al. 2020).

3. Methods and Data
As outlined in Section 1, case study research design 
centered on three sequential RQs. They were selected 
through emails and meetings with a panel of experts 
(hereafter, the “Expert Review Panel”) and the co-authors 
during an initial research design phase (Figure 3, points 
a-d). In the following data collection phase, results from 
answering each RQ informed the research design of the 
subsequent RQs. For example, the market review results 
for RQ1 informed keyword selection for answering RQ2, 
and the literature and market review results from RQs 1 
and 2 informed the interview framework for RQ3 (Figure 
3, points e-h, Appendix B). The results from RQ1 and 2 set 
the state of the art for Nordic industrial competitiveness 
and research on it, respectively. Results for RQ3 set out 

the future research orientations, which together with 
results for RQ2 informed on how much and in what 
ways the studied research is aligned to forest sector 
developments. A triangulation and validation phase 
resulted in a set of final themes building on outcomes 
from RQs 2 and 3.

The market review for RQ1 was conducted as outlined 
in Section 1 and is not described here further; the results 
were integrated into this article in the Introduction and 
Theoretical Setting (i.e., case study background). The 
research procedure for RQ2, publication analysis and 
literature review, is described further in Section 3.1 and 
the outcomes discussed in Section 4. The aim of the 
publication analysis was to depict key concepts and their 
prevalence in competitiveness research, and the aim of 
the literature review was to analyse the contribution of 
20 key articles fulfilling the predetermined criteria (i.e., 
research state of the art). The aim of the interviews for 
RQ3 was to compare and contrast with outcomes from 
RQs 1 (market developments) and 2 (past research), 
and set out future research orientations on the case 
study topic. For further explanation of the methods, 
see Appendix B. 

The research design and approach used in this case 
study was considered appropriate and reliable, as it 
supported saturation toward key themes as presented 
in Section 4, for example:

1. Initial Research 
Design

a) Expert Review Panel
    Meeting on Research 
    Design 

b) Research Planning

c) Data Collection
    Identification & 
    Confirmation 

d) Expert Panel Review
    Research Planning 

2. Data Collection

e) Market Review to RQ1

f) Publication Analysis & 
   Literature Review to RQ2 

g) Triangulation Findings
    from RQ1 & 2 and Expert
    Panel Review of 
    Triangulated Results 

h) Interviews to RQ3

3. Triangulation & 
Validation

i) Content Analysis &
   Triangulation of Results 
   Across Research Methods 

j) Validation of Results by 
   Co-authors

k) Expert Review Panel
    Validation of Final Results 

Figure 3. Research design in three stages: (i) initial research design, (ii) data collection, and (iii) triangulation and validation, for steps a-k. 
Source: Authors.



92 BioProducts Business 5(8) 2020

 • Two state-of-the-art analyses were conducted, for 
current market developments and recent research 
developments, to inform an interviews approach 
and validate its results.

 • Interviewees were selected initially by the Expert 
Review Panel and further interviewees added based 
on interviewee recommendation and agreement 
with the Expert Review Panel.

 • Multiple researchers reviewed coding outcomes 
from interviews, which were recorded digitally and 
transcribed.

 • Convergence in interview responses on a given 
threshold is disclosed (as defined in Section 3.3) 
and aligned with the outcomes for RQ2 to determine 
key themes.

3.1 Research Question 2: Publication 
analysis and literature review

Research output during the review period (2014–2019) 
was collected for a selected group of researchers (list of 
researchers in Appendix B) using digital libraries and 
keywords to determine the state of the art.4 The follow-
ing criteria were applied to analyse the publications:

 • Author located from within the sub-group research 
cluster;

 • Published between 2014-2019;

 • Published within the top 10% percentile of journals; 
and

 • Addressed a key topic identified in Toppinen et al. 
(2017a).

An analysis of topics and keywords was also con-
ducted for all publication search results, using SciVal 5 
and manually for comparison by the author from data 
originating in Scopus. SciVal metrics for grouping pub-
lications by keywords and themes for analysis were au-
tomated according to the publisher’s own methodology 
described in Elsevier (2019). Manual keyword clustering 
was also completed, by listing like-pairs of keywords in 
clusters for keywords appearing more than once (i.e., 
2+). Keywords related to methodologies were excluded, 
as were any that were unclear (e.g., “management” can 
refer to either environmental or corporate forms). The 
keywords generated by these different analyses were 
then used to develop the interview framework for RQ3.

A targeted list of 20 publications were selected from 
the total search results, based on the articles’ impact 
ranking as defined by SciVal, which was reviewed and 
approved by the Expert Review Panel before proceed-
ing.6 Each article was reviewed individually and as part 
of a group under a set of thematic headings identified 
during the market review and the keywords as indicated 
by the publication analysis results. Most of the articles 
were led by researchers from the faculty in the research 
groups, but some were written through collaborations.

3.2 Research Question 3: Expert Interviews

Interviewees were selected through dialogue with the 
Expert Review Panel. A total of 10 interviews were con-
ducted out of 13 contacted prospective interviewees. 
The invited interviewees were sought in order to cover 
the spectrum of perspectives on the theme of the review 
from within the Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, and 
only a few of the interviewees had articles selected for 
in-depth review. All interviewees were adjunct, tenured, 
or full professors working in or in close contact with the 
topic of the review. The interview guide (see Appendix B), 
developed from the results of RQs 1 and 2, covered a range 
of open-ended questions on the themes and keywords 
highlighted in this review. Interviews lasted approximately 
1 hour and were recorded and transcribed. Each inter-
viewee was provided the interview guide in advance.

Qualitative content analysis (QCA), a method pro-
posed by Schrier (2012), was used for identifying themes 
within the interview response data and to account for 
frequencies. Coding of the interviews was done using 
inductively and deductively grouped and categorized 
phenomena. During the process of interviewing, many 
of the findings were saturated, meaning that the total 
sample size was deemed sufficient. In presenting the re-
sults, convergence among interviewees regarding coded 
statements is noted in the article text. Only statements 
with high (>5/10 respondents) and medium convergence 
(<5 but >3/10) on the same points by interviewees are 
noted. The low (<3/10) convergence statements are not 
included in this article. Interview outcomes are presented 
consistently at the end of each results sub-section. 

4 Data span was chosen to match publication of Finnish Bioeconomy Strategy in 
2014.

5 SciVal is an Elsevier tool for publication analysis, which “enables you to visualize 
research performance, benchmark relative to peers, develop collaborative 
partnerships and analyze research trends” (SciVal 2020).

6 This expert was not interviewed.



Matthies et al.  —  Current and Future Research Themes in Forest Sector Competitiveness 93

4. Results and Discussion
Results for RQ1 were the case study background, inte-
grated to this article as the Introduction and Theoretical 
Setting (Sections 1 and 2). This section presents the 
results from RQs 2 and 3, separated as the publication 
analysis (Section 4.1) and the resulting key themes from 
literature review and interviews (Section 4.2).

4.1 Research Question 2: Publication 
Analysis Results
According to the publication analysis, the extent to which 
UofH’s research is impactful in its field of scientific litera-
ture and aligned with current competitiveness themes 
faced by the industrial forest sector was considered 
high during the review period. Competitiveness-specific 
research was analysed according to the defined criteria 
(Section 3.1), with 259 peer-reviewed publications having 
a field-weighted citation impact 7 of 1.89 and an average 
of 9.2 citations per publication (Table 1). Topic areas 
identified by SciVal metrics demonstrated alignment to 
the Academy of Finland themes as presented in Section 
1, with innovation, sustainable development, and socio-
technical transitions themes in industrial forest sector 
competitiveness increasing in importance.

Sustainability, knowledge sharing, and networks 
did not feature in the top 5 topics, but did feature in 
the top 10 topics (Table 1). Monitoring and reporting 
of sustainability information featured at 6th on the list, 
with sustainable business development (11), disclosure 
(12) and innovation (14). Bioproducts were mentioned in 
the context of wood/timber (8) and by or sub-products 
(3, 4, 10, and 13). Alternative forest service options were 
considered in the clusters about deforestation and com-
munities (7) and on ecosystem services (9). However, the 
lower absolute output by topic does not translate into a 
lower impact overall. Topics indicated close linkages with 
circular and bioeconomy concepts, various aspects of 
value chain, from security of the wood supply to products 
and processes, as well as the growing importance of in-
novation, sustainable development, and socio-technical 
transitions. This suggests a strong alignment with the 
themes of renewal in industrial competitiveness.

Field-weighted impact and publication prominence 
of the selected research contributions demonstrated the 
high value added in sustainability transitions literature 
(Table 1). The impact on servitization (e.g., ecosystem ser-
vice literature) scored highest in terms of field-weighted 
citation impact (6.42) among the list of 14 topics. It was 

followed by sustainability disclosure by firms (3.88) and 
sustainable development literature (3.78). This trend was 
also reflected in its global prominence scoring, where 
corporate responsibility (99.9th percentile), ecosystem 
service (99.9th percentile), sustainability disclosure (99.7th 
percentile) and innovation and socio-technical transi-
tions (99.9th percentile) all scored highly. The results 
indicated that industrial competitiveness research at 
UofH increasingly investigates sustainability transitions 
dimensions, as the urgency of global sustainability chal-
lenges has gained prominence. 

For alternative comparison, manually clustering pub-
lication keywords by incidence, according to the 259 
publications, demonstrated that forest management, 
products and services, sustainability, competitiveness 
and economy were the themes within the top 5 (Table 
2). In total, 119 of 160 identified keywords were clus-
tered. Servitization, sustainability, competitiveness, and 
economy featured on the list in terms of associated 
keyword prominence. Manual clustering highlighted 
the importance of sustainable transitions, sustainable 
development, and competitiveness themes in faculty 
research output, demonstrating that the majority of 
the 15 keyword clusters deal with these topics in vari-
ous aspects, as they relate to forestry and the industrial 
forest sector. It further supported the outcomes of the 
SciVal approach to publication analysis.

4.2 Research Questions 2 and 3: Key themes 
from literature review and interviews
4.2.1 Theme 1: Sustainability as an opportunity for 
forest sector competitiveness 

Changes in production approaches (e.g., shifting to the 
Global South) and sustainability awareness were found 
within the published research and interviews as affecting 
competitiveness and reputation for Nordic industrial for-
estry firms. According to interviewees, cost competitive-
ness was viewed as important but as a narrow definition 
for industrial competitiveness with very few new factors. 
Rather, external factors beyond the organization have 
a growing importance and role for driving industrial 
competitiveness during the current moment of his-
tory.8 Equally, environmental sustainability was viewed 

7 Field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) is the ratio of the total citations actually 
received by the denominator’s output, and the total citations that would be 
expected based on the average of the subject field.

8 High convergence, 8/10, among interviewed respondents. 



94 BioProducts Business 5(8) 2020

Table 1. Topics of research within the competitiveness sub-group with output above 4 articles, 2014-2019, as identified by SciVal.

Topics, in ranked order # of articles Field-weighted citation impact Global prominence percentile *
1 Forest, forests, forest landowners 18 3.75 90.8
2 Certification, forest, certified wood 11 1.62 94.6
3 Cellulose, lignin, hot water 9 1.12 93.7
4 Leuconostoc, dextran, acid bacteria 9 1.74 91.7
5 Food, diet, animal products 7 2.22 99.7
6 Corporate social responsibility, CSR, social responsibility 6 0.74 99.9
7 Forest, deforestation, community forests 6 1.83 98.9
8 Wood, lumber, softwood lumber 6 1.36 75.3
9 Ecosystem service, ecosystem services, multiple ecosystem 5 6.42 99.9
10 Aerogels, cellulose, cellulose aerogels 5 1.20 96.9
11 Sustainable development, biomass, economic growth 5 3.78 96.4
12 Corporate social responsibility, disclosure, environmental disclosure 4 3.88 99.7
13 Lignin, cell walls, lignin biosynthesis 4 1.62 98.2
14 Innovation, sustainable development, socio-technical transitions 4 1.99 99.9

* Global “prominence is an indicator of momentum/movement or visibility of a particular topic calculated” by SciVal. If the research topics addressed by an institution are in the top percentile, then 
it demonstrates that the selected institution is highly active and leading in a field of research that also has considerable momentum. SciVal provides the following definition for calculating a topic’s 
prominence, combining three metrics to indicate the topic’s momentum: (1) citation count in year n to papers published in n and n-1; (2) Scopus views count in year n to papers published in n and 
n-1; and (3) Average CiteScore for year n.

Table 2. Keyword clusters as identified by the author for competitiveness research by the sub-group, 2014-2019.

Keyword clusters
Keyword cluster 

descriptor
Occurrence for 

clustered keywords
Forestry, forest management, forestry practice, plantation forestry, forests, forestry production, land use, 
eucalyptus 

Forestry 71

Innovation, forest product, forestry services, products, new product launch, bioenergy, bio-energy, 
ethanol, packaging, packaging materials, furniture, wood, timber, wood products, wooden construction 

Products and 
services

65

Sustainability, sustainable development Sustainability 54
Competitiveness, competitive advantage, competition, corporate strategy, costs, future prospect, 
investment(s), strategic approach, business development, business ecosystem, business opportunities 

Competitiveness 49

Bioeconomy, circular economy, green economy, commerce, economics, business, small and medium-
sized enterprise 

Economy 44

Chemistry, metabolism, tensile strength, cellulose, exopolysaccharide(s), plant protein, water vapor 
permeability, alcohols, barrier properties, elastic moduli, mechanical properties, elongation at break, films 

Biophysical and 
chemical properties

41

Stakeholder, consumers, perception, consumption behavior, consumer, co-creation, human(s), 
environmental perceptions, environmental awareness, health 

Stakeholders 33

Ecology, ecosystem(s), nonhuman, ecosystem service(s) Ecosystem 33
Forest industry, forest sector(s), pulp and paper industry, construction industry, timber industry, 
construction business, food industry 

Industrial sectors 30

Environmental impact, economic and social effects, environmental impacts, environmental indicator, 
environmental performance, dependency, environmental issue, environmental sustainability, carbon, 
carbon footprint 

Non-financial impact 30

Finland, China, Sweden, Europe Geography 25
Environmental management, environmental protection, conservation, climate change, biodiversity, 
environmental regulations, environmental policy 

Environmental 
management

25

Corporate social responsibility, corporate social responsibilities (CSR), communication, corporate 
responsibility, corporate sustainability, environmental communication 

CSR 24

Forest certification, certification, sustainable forest management, timber certification, environmental 
certification, eco-friendly products 

Certification 15

Nonindustrial private forests, non-industrial private forest owners, forest owners Forest ownership 9



Matthies et al.  —  Current and Future Research Themes in Forest Sector Competitiveness 95

as mutually exclusive to financial performance among 
forestry firms, with climate change being the major sus-
tainability “megaforce” under consideration (Pätäri et al. 
2016). This indicates an alignment between researchers 
and industry on sustainability being a priority for both 
forestry sector competitiveness and in current research.

To effectively internalize these changes to business 
models and processes, environmental policy predict-
ability and stability were seen as important for the forest 
industry (Korhonen et al. 2015). A proactive environmen-
tal policy approach by some firms to such challenges has 
been shown to correspond with active communication, 
including product recyclability, measuring carbon foot-
print, energy use, and promoting research and develop-
ment activities (Räty et al. 2016).

Climate change is often viewed as an opportunity 
internally to many industrial forest firms; a basis for tran-
sitioning to more sustainable business practices (Pätäri et 
al. 2016). Firms view their role towards addressing climate 
change as to include mitigation via material substitution, 
bioenergy, recycling and material efficiency. According 
to interviewees, this shift affects entire business mod-
els, and increasingly new networks are important, but 
most new networks are often only in niche areas.9  In the 
reviewed literature, industrial representatives were the 
most adamant compared to other expert groups (gov-
ernmental, research) about the role of climate change 
and energy as megaforces driving changes in the sector 
(Korhonen et al. 2015). There is also a growing awareness 
of environmental issues among consumers, which is 
seen by forestry firms as an opportunity for competitive 
advantage by firms with high environmental standards 
(Korhonen et al. 2015). This underlines the managerial 
belief that sustainability is part of competitiveness and 
competitive advantage, and supports the conceptual 
underpinnings from Toppinen et al. (2017a) on how to 
operationalize the long-term view on competitiveness. 

There is also a strong, though not fully realized, role 
for government institutions within the forest value net-
work during the sustainability transformation, acting 
as a catalyst for innovation and renewal through policy 
predictability and stability (Korhonen et al. 2015). In 
turn, proactive and intrinsically motivated firms can 
also manifest action through internal environmental 
policy seeking the implementation of environmental 
communication and managerial and strategic attitudes 
on environmental performance. Räty et al. (2016) found 
proactive firm behavior went beyond labelling, while 

neutral firms restricted their communication and of-
ten relied only on labelling. Small and medium-sized, 
value-added firms and Do-It-Yourself stores were more 
often proactive or neutral, in contrast to retailers and 
construction firms who were predominantly neutral or 
passive. Environmental certificates were perceived as 
important, but used more in B2B than consumer export 
markets. The key benefits from a proactive environmental 
policy included resource efficiency, changing custom-
ers’ preferences, waste management and raw material 
origination. Such managerial level aspects of forest sec-
tor renewal and sustainability transitions should come 
forward, according to interviewees, in research output 
and engagement (e.g., effect of non-foresters leading 
major incumbents) to support adaptive planning and 
mitigate short-termism.10

4.2.2 Theme 2: Proactive environmental action by 
firms includes mechanisms to reduce and efforts to 
disclose value chain impacts

There is a persistent perception of Finland as having 
the best managed forests, forming part of a belief that 
Finland is already being sustainable,11 according to the 
interviewees. To address these beliefs, they asserted that 
there should be a focus toward radical rather than incre-
mental changes, as the time for optimism is decreasing 
with future emphasis on both climate change mitigation 
and adaptation having material consequences.12 For 
efficient use of wood in climate change mitigation by 
industry, the carbon sink in the forest, long-term stor-
age in wood products, and avoided emissions through 
substitution should all be maximized (Soimakallio et 
al. 2016). To expand the carbon sink, ecosystem service 
market participation by forestry firms in the Nordic re-
gion can result in limitations to asset market liquidity, 
meaning there is not a win-win for all market participants 
(Matthies et al. 2015). One means for achieving these 
objectives is through sustainable forest management 
(SFM) certification, linked with EU bioeconomy-linked 
policies and regulations seeking to reduce the impact 
of forestry utilization.

According to Soimakallio et al. (2016), the direct 
impact to the carbon emissions balance from wood 
harvesting in Finland (in 2010) was greater than the 

9 Moderate convergence, 4/10, among interviewed respondents.

10 Moderate convergence, 4/10, among interviewed respondents.

11 High convergence, 7/10, among interviewed respondents. 



96 BioProducts Business 5(8) 2020

combined direct emissions from wood utilization (i.e., 
substitution effect, which created a significant reduction 
in net emissions, but not enough to offset lost growth) 
and fossil fuel use in industrial production. Thus, the 
alternative “no harvesting” scenario had lower impact 
overall than all scenarios that included harvesting. These 
results indicate that changes in management and harvest 
processes in Finland may be required to meet the forest 
sector’s climate change mitigation targets, but finding 
solutions that both researchers and industry agree on 
and that firms initiate proactively can be challenging.

Impact offsetting and SFM certification provide two 
mechanisms to achieve those objectives. Interest in car-
bon and biodiversity offsetting via forests in Finland is 
growing, but the benefits of carbon offsets for investors 
and forest owners relative to traditional forest income 
(e.g., timber harvesting) may be limited. According to 
interviewees, firms should retain ownership of the ser-
vice vehicle (e.g., carbon ownership is a competitive 
advantage).13 Matthies et al. (2015) found the financial 
and diversification benefits from offsets were low at 
the stand level but increased as the landholding area 
increased. Fertile sites were optimal for receiving pay-
ments, creating a trade-off with timber production, while 
low correlations between offsets and timber markets 
overall support the move toward diversifying cashflow 
streams. Alternatively, SFM certification adoption, which 
also creates voluntary forest conservation areas, con-
tains benefits of market differentiation, reputation and 
brand image, value chain communication and supplier 
relationships (Tuppura et al. 2016). This can create both 
strategic and profitability motivations for firms, while cli-
ents requesting SFM certification indicates instrumental 
and institutional motives. 

Customer demand and expectations, policy, and 
regulation have all been cited as important external 
factors driving SFM adoption. However, industry-level 
barriers for sustainability transition action are often 
linked with insufficient customer preferences toward 
sustainable products and policy and regulation uncer-
tainty (Räty et al. 2016). Thus, there is a tendency toward 
being reactive, responding largely to external pressures, 
rather than proactive environmental behavior among 
industrial forest firms, which should be addressed to 
ensure competitiveness is sustained during a potentially 
rapid sustainability transition. Corporate profiles oriented 
toward strongly sustainable transitions within the in-
dustrial forest sector were also viewed by interviewees 

as limited, and that there is not always a strong push to 
alter this by incumbents.14 

Lähtinen et al. (2016a, b) examined corporate report-
ing on such environmental issues by large and small 
forestry firms. Large firms tended toward reporting of 
indirect impacts (77%) rather than direct impacts (i.e., on 
biodiversity and ecosystem services) and positive case 
studies (81%) over negative ones. Resource efficiency 
and renewability were important co-benefits with envi-
ronmental management actions, with strong emphasis 
by firms on SFM certificates and other conservation pro-
grammes. Monitoring methodologies and uncertainties 
around environmental issues were not transparently re-
ported by the large firms. Reporting was focused toward 
actions within a broader value chain scope and positive 
orientation, demonstrating an imbalance between re-
porting and the scale of environmental challenges like 
climate change and biodiversity loss facing most forest 
sector firms. There was also lack of common economic, 
social, and environmental criteria and indicators among 
small firms (Lähtinen et al. 2016b). Divergences in so-
cial indicators (e.g., workforce, working conditions and 
safety) and environment (e.g., water, energy) meant 
that respondents, among smaller firms, did not perceive 
environmental sustainability as critical to their business 
operations or markets. To better integrate environmental 
sustainability to external communication more broadly 
and the quantification of negative impacts will require a 
greater level of strategic insight and awareness among 
the actors in Finnish forest value chains toward the role 
of such disclosures in terms of engaging stakeholders.

Understanding the impacts of industry internation-
alization on competitiveness extends analysis beyond 
the boreal forests, with many of the Nordic industrial 
forestry companies having operations in the Global 
South. According to a global meta-review by Malkamäki 
et al. (2018), the socioeconomic impacts of such large-
scale tree plantations are many and varied. The greatest 
number of impacts have been on employment, land, 
livelihoods, and social impact feedbacks. These results 
support the view that displacement of locals during the 
plantation establishment phase is a major social impact, 
which has effects both in terms of lost local livelihoods 
and access to land. Although there are challenges to 

12 High convergence, 7/10, among interviewed respondents. 

13 Moderate convergence, 4/10, among interviewed respondents.

14 High convergence, 7/10, among interviewed respondents.



Matthies et al.  —  Current and Future Research Themes in Forest Sector Competitiveness 97

achieving a proactive approach toward mitigating and 
disclosing against negative impacts, the Nordic and 
Finnish forest industry has a long tradition of overcoming 
global and local challenges in wood supply, according 
to interviewees. Future forest competitiveness research 
should include managing new risks (e.g., demographics, 
climate), certification challenges, and more emphasis 
on downstream activities (e.g., consumers) helping to 
manage more a radical transition successfully.15

4.2.3 Theme 3: Realizing innovativeness and 
industry renewal requires transformative change

Value-added products and services are viewed as im-
portant means for improving industrial competitiveness 
according to interviewees, with a focus on new margin 
and profitable growth. Academic research has explored 
both product and service market potentials and limita-
tions, supporting this development (e.g., Alekhina et al. 
2014, Dahlbo et al. 2015). However, innovation in the 
Nordic and Finnish industrial forestry context is still 
limited and innovation systems uncertain, with the 
focus of incumbents still on bulk and low value added. 
That has effects on innovation orientations, technology 
lock-ins, lack of long-termism in product development 
and timber market developments.16 To overcome these 
challenges, research indicates that adopting new para-
digms is important for supporting competitiveness and 
resilience. 

Key themes emerging to support the Finnish forest 
sector’s sustainability transition include green, circular 
and bioeconomy paradigms. D’Amato et al. (2019) in-
vestigated how corporate reports used these themes, 
finding that circular economy was utilized abundantly, 
for efforts such as eco-efficiency and innovations, focus-
ing on (1) monitoring/assessing; reducing/optimizing; 
(2) recycling/ reusing of energy; and (3) material flows. 
For the bioeconomy, use centered around (1) bio-based 
energy and fuels; (2) higher value use of biomass; and 
(3) biosecurity. Taken together, very few linkages were 
found between the use of these concepts as reported 
by firms, opening for further development a combined 
paradigm for a “circular bioeconomy”. Such a paradigm 
could support bio-based themes of product and service 
innovation, while integrating the sustainability dimen-
sions of industrial competitiveness. Interviewees noted 
that a new focus taking on global and radical sustain-
ability transformation questions is a high priority (e.g., 
the climate crisis), with new growth paradigms (e.g., no 

growth), new value networks of actors, new innovations 
and knowledge sharing between actors required.17

Support for the development of future products and 
services oriented toward circularity and long-term use 
of wood (e.g., wood construction and bio-materials) 
have scored favorably among forest industry actors 
(Korhonen et al. 2018b). However, upon further ex-
ploration, key product and service categories include 
sawn wood and pulp and paper products, the tradi-
tional mainstays of Finnish industrial forest product mix. 
Services and packaging solutions also score highly, with 
marketing ranked as a core aspect to enhance these by 
industry actors. To support commercialization of circu-
larity and longer lifespan of products are dimensions 
noted by firms for emphasis (e.g., wooden construction 
and bio-materials). Mattila and Roos (2014) indicated 
large incumbent service organizations are favored 
by market dynamics and forest ownership, making 
them slow to adapt, with limited customer orientation. 
Instead, service providers often view forest owners as 
material providers rather than customers. These results 
contrast with D’Amato et al. (2019), demonstrating the 
role of managerial-level engagement beyond only 
corporate reporting, where perceptions, knowledge 
and capacity toward the sustainability transition can 
be more granularly assessed. 

Toppinen et al. (2017b) found that forest industry 
stakeholders viewed innovation more positively and 
this view was more widespread than 10 years earlier, 
with new products by network actors contributing be-
tween 30% and 75% of turnover in 2030 (average 61%). 
The highest estimates came from industry associations 
and industry experts. Changes included substantial 
shifts in strategic partnerships within value networks. 
For future scenarios, product portfolio diversification 
through niche markets and high-value-added products 
were important considerations. However, a high level of 
divergence between industry actors’ perceived capacity 
to realize these shifts by 2030 and researchers indicates 
a high level of uncertainty for the sector. A radical shift 
in the business logic may be required to achieve the 
required changes in the product portfolio. Interviewees 
and literature reviewed demonstrate a major divergence 
between researchers’ perspectives and the actions of 

15 High convergence, 7/10, among interviewed respondents.

16 High convergence, 6/10, among interviewed respondents. 

17 High convergence, 7/10, among interviewed respondents.



98 BioProducts Business 5(8) 2020

incumbent forestry firms in the theme of realizing in-
novativeness and industry renewal. 

An important factor limiting such a transformation 
of the sector is the density of local and regional bio-
economy value networks. Korhonen et al. (2108b) identi-
fied the Finnish industrial forest network as being high 
and divided in two sub-groups, (1) a research–national 
institute-NGO group; and (2) an industry–government–
other group. The former had higher levels of communi-
cation and knowledge sharing among actors than the 
latter. Large industrial firms are central organizations, 
while other periphery actors included research, NGOs 
and consultancies in the latter group. The network was 
centrally steered in a top-down manner by government 
agencies and industrial actors, who advocated their own 
policy interests. Such a structure may be detrimental to 
long-term innovation and inclusive knowledge transfer, 
which can impact on the adaptability and resilience of 
the sector in competitive markets.

The interviews also emphasized the pathways, net-
works, adaptive capacity and scenarios required for 
future academic research orientations. Such research 
supports industrial competitiveness orientations by lead-
ing in ambition setting, to be prioritized and accepted 
by internal and external actors and built on, as it helps to 
orient toward what is the end goal for stakeholders and/
or society.18 Sustainability aspects of academic research 
(e.g., futures research, sustainability transitions) should 
be central to forest industry renewal and associated 
policy making debate and decision-making, focusing 
on adaptive governance and futures research, especially 
given rapid sustainability transition periods and potential 
chronic crisis/disruptions (i.e., in markets).19

4.2.4 Theme 4: Transition requires knowledge 
sharing by firms towards stakeholders 

Research indicates the importance of knowledge sharing 
between suppliers and buyers for increasing stakeholder 
awareness about sustainability dimensions in forest value 
chains and expanding beyond current value networks 
(e.g., Wang et al. 2014). To overcome market prejudices 
towards timber use (e.g., susceptibility to fire, warping 
and shrinkage, history of concrete use) may require 
better knowledge sharing about timber products from 
the supplier side. However, a slow response and devel-
opment by industries to meet demand and uptake for 
wood-based product utilization has been viewed, almost 
unanimously, as a hindrance to innovation diffusion by 

Franzini et al. (2018). Technical and financial aspects and 
the end-user preferences are also important consider-
ations in firms seeking to better share knowledge about 
their product and service innovations (Franzini et al. 
2018). Service offerings to customers should also have 
a material impact on business outcomes by address-
ing the heterogenous nature of individual preferences 
through personalization and differentiation (Kaptein and 
Parvinen 2015). As a result of growing awareness and 
change in perceptions of consumers toward a bio-based 
economy, there is also growing support among Finnish 
citizens toward bio-based products, e.g., for bioenergy 
compared with fossil fuel-based energy (Vainio et al. 
2019). Renewal of the energy markets and consumer 
awareness were key drivers in preferences, with small-
scale production and domestic bioenergy power in 
rural areas seen as important. This underlines the rural 
employment dimension of the bioeconomy, where bio-
mass energy production is an important component 
in Finland. Interviewees of this study also noted the 
importance of stakeholder management as an aspect 
of competitiveness, in order to outreach to and inform 
consumers about quality and Finnish value added in 
environmental and social considerations (e.g., welfare, 
income distribution).20

5. Conclusions
Past research by and interviews with UofH researchers 
in the assessment of and support towards transfor-
mation of the industrial forest sector in Finland and 
the Nordic region was indicated by the publication 
analysis and across the four themes presented. This 
research was built on the orientations outlined by the 
Academy of Finland themes (Appendix A), including, 
inter alia, networks, value co-creation and innova-
tion, stakeholder values, and sustainable and efficient 
resourcing pathways to ensure both adaptation and 
adaptability. Notably there were similarities to the views 
from industry research on the first theme, as to the role 
of sustainability toward industrial competitiveness, 
while divergences emerged on the latter three themes. 
For resource utilization and the reduction of negative 
impact (theme 2), product and service innovation and 

18 High convergence, 7/10, among interviewed respondents. 

19 High convergence, 7/10, among interviewed respondents. 

20 High convergence, 6/10, among interviewed respondents.



Matthies et al.  —  Current and Future Research Themes in Forest Sector Competitiveness 99

proliferation (theme 3), and the importance of engag-
ing value chain stakeholders (theme 4), interviewed 
researchers suggested a greater importance and more 
radical transformation than did industry. Still, the im-
portance of these themes was recognized by industry 
through the existing research. 

The key findings that emerged through this case 
study were the growing perception among researchers 
that increasingly radical sustainability orientations are 
required to transform the sector, as evidenced by articles 
published from the end of the 2014–2019 review period 
compared with those published in the beginning of the 
period, and that a higher drive for transformative change 
was identified among interviewed academic experts than 
what could be concluded about the industry studied. 
This could be a cause of concern also from a research 
funding perspective if the academy continues to focus 
less on practical industry development needs and more 
on high-profile scientific ambitions.

Thus, there are reservations as to whether incumbent 
firms are sufficiently ambitious to harness the emerging 
opportunities. This observation is important not only for 
guiding forest industry managerial decision making, but 
also nationally, as Finland seeks to diversify its economy 
and broaden and deepen the integration of networks 
beyond traditional value chains. Barriers to more radi-
cal sustainability action within firms were found to be 
tied with extrinsic motivation for sustainability or reac-
tive approaches to external factors, such as customer 
expectations. 

The sustainability transformation has increased un-
certainty in many industries, including forestry, requiring 
innovativeness, the uptake of new materials, and the 
establishment of collaborations throughout the value 
chains. Recent advancements in European industrial 
policy (e.g., the European Battery Alliance) demonstrate 
that these challenges can be overcome through targeted 
action. The paradigm shift in research orientations, as 
evidenced in this case study, can feed into the broader 
commercial renewal through knowledge sharing and 
educational development. As key takeaways, we con-
clude that sustainability contributes to competitiveness 
and market access over the long-term. A more radical 
transformation is thus needed, relying on proactive sus-
tainability management and strong investment toward 
new product and service development, in order for forest 
industry firms to become champions in the circular and 
bioeconomy paradigms.

6. Limitations 
The authors acknowledge that the focus on a single case 
institution provided a limited scope for review without 
a peer comparison. However, by assessing the output 
of the institution on three RQs, the case study examines 
in greater detail how individual research items contrib-
ute towards understanding different factors within a 
broad theme – industrial competitiveness. Further, we 
could contrast researcher groups’ past outputs with 
their views to future orientations to better understand 
the emergence of new or the strengthening of existing 
themes. By continuing to critically explore these re-
search orientations, academic research has a continued 
importance for the Finnish and global industrial forest 
sector. Methodological options for how to carry that out 
are found to range from futures research exploration of 
new pathways to the evaluation of scenarios that link 
socioeconomic and environmental changes. 

Naturally, using our (or any other documentary-
based) approach, it is not possible to address to what ex-
tent the research has actually been used by the industry 
itself to gain higher competitiveness. A more fine-tuned 
analysis is called for in developing more explicit manage-
rial recommendations to improve the competitiveness 
of the different segments of the forest sector and build 
firm-specific strategies. Despite this, our review reflected 
a wider scope of research conclusions, going beyond 
a dissertation level connection of articles to connect 
closely oriented outputs across research groups, while 
retaining granularity not found in a broader faculty or 
university level research review. It explored the broader 
publication record for a subset of researchers focusing 
on topics relating to industry competitiveness in one of 
the leading forestry countries in Europe, and by doing 
this, pinpointed the relevance for a sustainability tran-
sition, particularly under the bioeconomy and circular 
economy paradigms. A more specific limitation, the 
topic of integrating preferences by and knowledge from 
stakeholders, appears as an issue that would be better 
tackled with other data and methods than the literature 
review and researcher interviews done here, and those 
results are therefore not conclusive.

As a whole, the gained case-based evidence from the 
perspective of one leading academic institution provides 
a potentially valuable benchmark for similar reviews to 
determine how research on this topic is evolving in differ-
ent geographic, political, economic and social contexts. 



100 BioProducts Business 5(8) 2020

Future research should also complement this by focusing 
on the inclusion of viewpoints from other stakeholders 
(e.g., firms from different segments, governments, trade 
associations, NGOs, consultants, etc.) about how much 
and in what ways academic research has supported the 
development of the national forest bioeconomy. 

7. References
Academy of Finland. 2014. Biotalous: Kohti kestävää kasvua – 

näkökulmia biotalouden tutkimustarpeisiin (In Finnish). [Bio-
economy – 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 ad-
vantage. 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_Helsinki-
Univ_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., Korho-
nen, 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: institu-
tional isomorphism and collective rationality in organiza-
tional 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 Com-
mission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Euro-
pean 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. Avail-
able from: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PD
F/?uri=CELEX:52018DC0673&from=EN

Franzini, F, Toivonen, R, & Toppinen, A. 2018. Why not wood? Ben-
efits 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-disci-
plinary 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 de-
cisions 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, Leski-
nen, P, & Hetemäki, L. 2018. Diversification of the forest indus-
tries: 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 edu-
cation in Finland. The Forestry Chronicle 65 (6). doi: 10.5558/
tfc65405-6

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

Korhonen, S, & Niemelä, J. 2005. A conceptual analysis of capa-
bilities: 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 



Matthies et al.  —  Current and Future Research Themes in Forest Sector Competitiveness 101

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 Bio-
economy 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, world-
wide. 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 proxim-
ity, 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%20
2008%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 sus-
tainability 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 Re-
search Centre. Institute for Prospective Technological Stud-

ies: Seville, Spain. Accessed on: 12.09.2019. Available online: 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/jrcsh/ files/JRC97789%20Fact-
sheet_Bioeconomy_final.pdf

Räty, T, Toppinen, A, Roos, A, Riala, M, & Nyrud, AQ. 2016. Environ-
mental 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 Bio-
economy Strategy. Helsinki: Edita Prima Ltd.

Toppinen, AMK, Korhonen, JE, Hurmekoski, E, & Hansen, E. 2017a. 
What makes a European forest-based bioeconomy competi-
tive? In Towards a sustainable European forest-based bioeconomy 
- Assessment and the way forward, ed. Winkel, G. European For-
est 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 Euro-
pean 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 com-
panies. 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 build-
ing: a study of expert perspectives from the UK. Journal of Clean-
er Production 65, 350–361. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.08.023

Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic Man-
agement 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. Environ-
mental 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



102 BioProducts Business 5(8) 2020

Appendix A:

Academy of Finland report on bioeconomy research paradigms

Systemic changes in the bioeconomy:

• Value networks

• Biorefineries and product portfolios

• Cross-border resource efficiency

• Durability of protein production and consumption

• Consumption as a force for change

Products, services and concepts of bioeconomy:

• Modular local production

• Technically and economically sound raw materials

• From nature to holistic well-being

Biomass availability and ecosystem services:

• Security of supply

•  Optimal use of material flows

• Powerful surfaces

• Blue-grain economy

• Tailored biomass

Scientists in science and technology:

• Modular mobile local production

• Enabling technologies in the bioeconomy

• Bio-based compounds and substances

• System changes, value networks reform

• Tailored biomass

Researchers in culture and society:

• A critical review of the bioeconomy

• Creation and implementation of innovations in the bioeconomy

• Citizen in the bioeconomy

• Changing values

• A value choice for a sustainable resource economy



Matthies et al.  —  Current and Future Research Themes in Forest Sector Competitiveness 103

Appendix B

Supplementary Information

1. Research Design
Research design was based on iterative meetings, email exchanges and reviews with the Expert Review 
Panel and co-authors. Initial results, triangulation of secondary outcomes and final validation, as outlined 
in Figure 4 of the article, was done in accordance with the three research questions and associated meth-
ods outlined in Figure 2. 

2. Market Review
Research Question 1: In what ways is country X’s position as a global supplier of sustainable forest 
products competitive in the “current snapshot”?

A market review was conducted building on the conceptual lens in Figure 3. Key themes included, inter 
alia, forest management certification, Nordic-Baltic economic convergence, Finnish industrial forest clus-
ter, new products and services, the circular bioeconomy and climate change. Multiple data sources were 
used, ranging from media to peer-reviewed articles and statistical databases, to build a snapshot state-
of-the-art of the industrial Finnish forestry context. Market review outcomes were compiled and used to 
inform the triangulation and validation of results from the methods applied to research questions 2 and 
3. It was used to identify and validate the themes by which literature were grouped in the publication an-
alysis and literature review. To do this, the key themes identified by the market review were presented to 
co-authors and Expert Review Panel members by email and discussion to review, debate and validate as 
key themes in the context of the Finnish industrial forest sector. The market review was condensed into the 
introduction section of this article.

3. Publication Analysis & Literature Review
Research Question 2: To what extent and in what ways is the “current orientation” of research in Faculty 
X aligned with the  “current snapshot”?

a. Publication Analysis 
The following persons were included in the list of sub-group researchers:

• Toppinen, Anne
• Valsta, Lauri T.
• D’Amato, D.
• Parvinen, Petri M. T.
• Berghäll, Sami
• Korhonen, Jaana E.
• Lähtinen, Katja
• Salo, Jari
• Karppinen, Heimo
• Korhonen-Kurki, Kaisa
• Mattila, Osmo

• Hukkinen, Janne I.
• Häyrinen, Liina
• Rekola, Mika
• Matthies, Brent D.
• Holopainen, Jani Markus
• Vainio, Annukka
• Tuomisto, Hanna L.
• Li, Ning
• Wan, Minli
• Heinonen, Visa
• Tenkanen, Maija

b. Literature Review
Articles were reviewed as follows, first read of the article, searching for key information about the re-
search question, background and theoretical framework, method, results and conclusions as they related 
to the topics identified in interview framework figure and competitiveness. Key information was placed 
in summary texts of approximately 250-500 words, which were then analysed as a grouping under a 
thematic heading aligned with the themes identified in the market review through validation with the 
co-authors and Expert Review Panel. Thereafter, the summaries were integrated into a thematic summary 
as presented in the Results and Discussion.

Selected articles ranged from 2014-2019 with a range of contributing authors and author leadership. Ma-
jority of the articles were led by researchers from the Faculty, but some were written through collaborations 



104 BioProducts Business 5(8) 2020

with outside organisations or universities in Finland. Results of the publication analysis and literature review 
were triangulated, including the keywords identified, and included in the interview framework develop-
ment. In this way, the interviews built on the existing market and research contexts to inform discussions 
about current and future research dimensions.

4. Interviews & Interview Framework
a. Interviews
The interview framework (next section) was developed after concluding the results of RQs 1 and 2. A draft 
was reviewed by co-authors and the Expert Review Panel. The framework covers the purpose of the study, 
the background theory, definitions, and data collection approach. The interviewees were selected by con-
firmation with the Expert Review Panel. Each participant in the interviews was provided the framework 
in advance (at the time of agreeing the interview via email). A total of 10 interviews out of 13 contacted 
prospective interviewees were conducted (77% response rate). All interviewees work in or in close contact 
with the Faculty on the issues related to competitiveness. The following persons were interviewed from the 
Faculty for this review:

Interviewee Titles Aggregate Number Interviewed

Professor Emeritus 1

Professor 7

Associate Professor 1

Adjunct Professor 1

There were a total of 5 structured headings with introductory and open-ended questions and one ‘other’ 
category:

1. Personal definition of competitiveness
2. Research roles
3. Research outputs
4. Research futures
5. Research priorities
6. Other

Half of interviews were conducted face-to-face (5/10), with the reminder carried out via phone. The inter-
views lasted 1 hour each. All interviews were recorded using a phone app and transcripted into written 
copies for review through a purchased service. Transcripts were reviewed and excerpts compiled in an 
Excel spreadsheet to provide an overview of the structure of the results. The primary researcher assessed 
the outcomes to compile the key issues by topic heading. After compiling the findings by heading, coding 
the responses and compiling preliminary findings, the initial results were reviewed by a second researcher, 
an external expert in the field of Finnish forest sector competitiveness. 

Coding included inductively and deductively grouped and categorised phenomena. Qualitative content 
analysis (QCA) method proposed by Schrier (2012) was used for identifying themes within the response 
data and accounting for the frequencies. The themes were identified through concurrent and iterative 
review of the transcripts from the interviews. Transcripted texts were copied to an Excel and reviewed 
together with the outcomes of the other interview responses. The responses were compared to determine 
any emergent themes and clustered according to the themes identified using the identification of shared 
keywords, concepts and orientations associated to the identified themes to determine the level of con-
vergence by the interviewees. The obtained themes were then compiled into a second Excel sheet and 
convergence frequencies were calculated. 

During the process of interviewing, many of the themes were saturated (i.e. >50% of the interviewees men-
tioned and converged on the same themes) meaning that the total sampling size was deemed sufficient. 
In presenting the summary of the interviews, convergence was noted (amount of interviewee’s responses 
that converged on the theme statement). An indication of the number of interviewees who converged 
on the same points during their interviews is given (high = >50% of interviewees, moderate = >20% and 



Matthies et al.  —  Current and Future Research Themes in Forest Sector Competitiveness 105

<=50%, low = <20%). Convergence was defined as stating the same response theme to the same question 
asked to other interviewees, an example of the second Excel results with themes and convergences is pro-
vided here:

Theme Research Futures (Future Themes)
Number of 
Converged 
Responses 

1

New focus taking on global and radical sustainability transformation questions 
is high priority (e.g. climate crisis, biodiversity crisis, new growth paradigms (e.g. 
no growth), new value networks of actors, new innovations and knowledge 
sharing between actors)

7

2

Managerial level aspects of forest sector renewal and sustainability transitions 
should come forward in research output and engagement (e.g. effect of non-
foresters leading major incumbents) to support adaptive planning and mitigate 
short-termism

4

3

Forest industry has a long tradition of overcoming challenges in wood supply, 
but future research should include new risks (e.g. demographics, climate), 
certification challenges and more emphasis downstream activities (e.g. 
consumers). Ability to address these questions uncertain.

5

4

Currently there are numerous unresearched areas (e.g. sustainable finance) 
and underresearched areas (e.g. effects on land opportunity costs during 
sustainability transition, effects of rapid adaptation and landuse lock-ins), 
especially in social sciences (i.e. due to limited competencies)

8

5 Servitisation and digitalisation are key future themes to continue developing 2

6
Rapid policy making cycles should be a focus, taking into account long-term 
path dependencies and adaptive governance in public and private strategy and 
policy development

4

The final results of the coding and presentation of the interview results was validated with both co-authors 
through review and the Expert Review Panel via presentation of the results and a group discussion. 

5. Interview Framework (as presented to interviewees)

The aim of this research is to benchmark the Faculty's expertise and experts in research relative to the current 
and projected future research paradigms in forest sector competitiveness focusing on industrial development. The 
final report will examine effects from the policy environment, market dynamics, and global megatrends driving or 
impacting on the emerging range of commercialised forest products and services, including forest cluster growth, 
product innovation, and supply chain integration. The framework for competitiveness shown in Figure 2 is used in 
this study to frame what research outputs and research groups are included in the analysis.

The following European Commission definitions used in the context of this research: 

1. Competitiveness: the ability of a country (region, location) to deliver the beyond-GDP goals for its citizens (Aiginger, 
2013)

2. Beyond-GDP goals: measures that go beyond economic to include environmental and social aspects of well-being 
(e.g. Sustainable Development Goals) (European Commission, 2019)

3. Bioeconomy: the production of renewable biological resources and the conversion of these resources and waste 
streams into value added products, includes traditional agriculture, forest, fishery, food and pulp and paper value 
chains (European Commission, 2012)

4. Circular economy: starts at the very beginning of a product's life” where both the design phase and production 
processes have an impact on sourcing, resource use and waste generation throughout a product's life (European 
Commission, 2015)



106 BioProducts Business 5(8) 2020

Interview Questions:

1) DEFINITION OF COMPETITIVENESS: In your view, what does “competitiveness” mean in the context of 
Finnish industrial forest sector?

a) List some key words in describing:
i. Competitiveness (beyond GDP)

ii. Finnish industrial forest sector (circular bioeconomy)
iii. Future economy & society

2) RESEARCH ROLES: In your view, what role do you see for research and researchers in supporting, research-
ing and reflecting on the competitiveness of Finnish industrial forestry and its development over time?

a) In what manner is that role currently being expressed within the Faculty? Could it be improved? 
If so, how?

b) Is there currently a close linkage with the private actors in the sector? If not, how could research 
more closely relate to their needs? What actions should be taken to achieve that?

3) RESEARCH OUTPUTS: What have been key outputs of your / your research group / your colleagues contri-
butions toward research about competitiveness by the Finnish industrial forest sector?

a) Are your contributions currently sufficient for your goals / objectives in this area of research? If not, 
what improvements would be needed? How would those be achieved?

4) RESEARCH FUTURES: What do you think are the key competitiveness challenges for Finnish industrial 
forestry actors currently in your view? And in the next 10 years?

a) What opportunities are there for the Faculty to address those challenges through research outputs 
and outreach?

5) RESEARCH PRIORITIES: What should be the research priorities generally within the Faculty to support a 
more competitive Finnish industrial forest sector? Within your field of study (indicate/define)?

a) How might those priorities be best achieved within the next 10 years?
6) OPEN DISCUSSION: Please feel free to discuss any related topics that you feel are important for supporting 

this research.

Supplementary References
Aiginger, K, Bärenthaler-Sieber, S, & Vogel, J. 2013. Competitiveness under new perspectives (No. 44). Working Paper.
Current Forestry Reports. 2019. Author Guidelines for Current Forestry Reports. Springer, USA.
Elsevier. 2019. Topic Prominence in Science. Accessed on December 3, 2019. Available from: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scival/

releases/topic-prominence-in-science
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.
European Commission. 2015. Closing the loop - An EU action plan for the Circular Economy. Communication from the Commission to 

the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
European Commission. 2019. Beyond GDP. Accessed on August 15, 2019. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/beyond_gdp/

index_en.html
Schrier, M. 2012. Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. Sage, Los Angeles, CA, p. 280.
Toppinen, AMK, Korhonen, JE, Hurmekoski, E, and Hansen, E. 2017. What makes a European forest-based bioeconomy competitive? To-

wards a sustainable European forest-based bioeconomy Assessment and the way forward.

https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scival/releases/topic-prominence-in-science
https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scival/releases/topic-prominence-in-science
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/beyond_gdp/index_en.html
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/beyond_gdp/index_en.html