untitled Globalisation and the Finnish forest sector: On the internationalisation of forest-industrial operations ARI AUKUSTI LEHTINEN Lehtinen, Ari Aukusti (2002). Globalisation and the Finnish forest sector: on the internationalisation of forest-industrial operations. Fennia 180: 1– 2, pp. 237–250. Helsinki. ISSN 0015-0010. This article focuses on the most recent internationalisation of Finnish for- est companies. The profiles of the major companies are analysed. A ‘world map’ is drawn to illustrate the gradual formation of forest-industrial spac- es in three scales: the articulation of Finnish (national) forest interest is related to the strategic openings of the Finnish forest companies within European (continental) and global (transcontinental) contexts. The suggest- ed world map covers both the active exporting of the ‘Finnish model’ and the subsequent new location of Finland in the international networks. Both material and symbolic dimensions of the process are highlighted. The slow dynamics of the paper production is set against the current fluidity of so- cietal demands that are fed by intensifying competition between the lead- ing companies, profit maximation among the shareholders, and keen steer- ing by globally aware environmentalists and consumers. Finally, the eco-so- cial consequences of the contested globalisation process are addressed by ex- amining the most controversial signs and signals. These include size ranking of the companies, profit hunting, image and identity politics, and product cer- tifications. The theoretical framework is based on the political-ecology litera- ture inspired by actor- and context-specific approaches. Hence, the aim is a simultaneous analysis of both material and symbolic changes in forest-indus- trial practices. Ari Aukusti Lehtinen, Department of Geography, University of Joensuu, P. O. Box 111, FIN-80101 Joensuu, Finland. E-mail: ari.lehtinen@joensuu.fi Material and symbolic forests The intensive internationalisation of the forest in- dustry is currently rearranging the interrelations between the leading companies and their suppli- ers and customers. The governance of the com- panies is also under redefinition: shareholder in- terest increasingly conditions the managers’ de- cision-making. The entire societal setting of the forest industry has therefore changed, both at the level of material production and in terms of finan- cial performance and image profilation. Accord- ingly, this article outlines the basic forest-indus- trial restructuring in connection to the rise of sym- bolic and speculative values in paper production (see, e.g., Collins 1998; Sandberg & Sörlin 1998; Saether 1998; Kortelainen 1999a). The specific goal is to analyse the eco-social interdependencies and consequences of the glo- balisation of the forest industry and trade. On the one hand, these are related to the growing de- mands of profit maximation and, on the other hand, to widening sustainability demands and concerns of justice. Theoretically at stake is the contested rearticulation of local–global interfac- es and nature–society relations. Both are informed by a conceptual refocus on the interrelations be- tween the material and symbolic spheres of our socio-spatial existence (e.g., Peet & Watts 1996; McAfee 1999; Murdoch et al. 2000; Zimmerer 2000). The empirical material is limited to the Finnish forest-industrial companies that are cur- rently re-working their historical embeddednes in Finnishness and Finnish forest resources. The anal- ysis focuses on the years 1990–2000. 238 FENNIA 180: 1–2 (2002)Ari Aukusti Lehtinen The article’s starting point underlines the seri- ousness of the current eco-social problems. The challenges of globalisation are real and acute, and demand collective and effective reforms in soci- etal practices. These challenges can no longer be overlooked and labelled as ‘trendy’ constructions of eco-alarmism. This does not, however, change the fact that ecological and social imperatives are human derivations and therefore loaded with a myriad of motives. There is no way back to the modern(ist) worldview based on solid divisions between ‘us’ and ‘them’, the ‘internal’ and the ‘external’, or the human and non-human realms (Conley 1995; Whatmore & Thorne 1998; Lehti- nen 2000, 2001a). Environmental problems, violations of human rights, and other dark sides of modernisation can no longer be excluded from global and local prac- tices (see Brown & Flavin 1999). This is the first and the most fundamental frame view of this arti- cle: it is here, in between and across the domi- nating ways of knowing, that new openings and radical inclusions are needed. But difficult prac- tical challenges follow immediately: How to make the inclusions deemed necessary? On what basis should the necessities be ranked? How to cope with the consequences of these inclusions? How to evaluate the relevance of the myriad of already existing critical eco-social signals? The task seems paradoxical. The critical voices emerge from experiences of alarming material shortcomings, but they turn into qualitative at- tributes when integrated into trade routines as ex- penses or guiding rules. Sustainability, green cer- tificates, organic farming, just forestry, etc., are ideal models that aim at changes in human be- haviour. But they are also signals in the market because they seek to measure the viability of the production process and the value of the end prod- uct. This leads to the second frame view of the article: the forest-industrial actors (as economic actors in general) are now more frequently forced to integrate qualitative aspects into their produc- tion and trading profiles. The direction of this change is currently under heated contestation. The (research) questions hence are: How to secure the validity of information concerning the basic criti- cal material conditions in our local–global world? Especially, how to secure the validity of the tran- sition from material to qualitative criteria? How to identify and evaluate the signals of the actors and target groups? How to confirm that even the most marginal(ised) but concerned voices will be heard? The ‘qualitative turn’ within the forest trade is taking place in the negotiations concerning the central criteria of credibility and indicators of sus- tainability. Concretely, the macro-level merger logic follows size and credibility rankings of the key actors. The stock markets are sensitive to the behaviour of the companies, and the markets ‘read’ the credibility labels of the suppliers. New and contested measures of forest certification have been introduced and publishers and media houses are now willing to confirm the sound background of the paper they use (Fürstner 1996). Finally, the disputed guarantees confuse the con- sumers. The third frame view of the article thus argues that the main forest-industrial actors are increasingly conditioned by the (more or less pub- lic) negotiations of credibility. These negotiations, while surfacing as economically significant, turn into forums of hegemonic competition. This com- petition is about the formulation of the primary form and content of the negotiations, including the subsequent optional distribution of loads and benefits defined in the reached agreements. In known examples, the initial eco-social worries have turned into a ‘game’ of relational positions and benefits and have resulted in an illusion of strengthening eco-social viability (see, e.g., Mc- Afee 1999; Tirkkonen 2000). Again, difficult ques- tions emerge: How to learn to identify the con- tinuously changing conditions and rules of this ‘game’? On what basis should the concerns with ‘good’ and ‘bad’ motives be distinguished? How to avoid processes where the judges judge their own cases? How to make an ethical argument economically convincing? The operations and negotiations are document- ed in this study with the help of geographical scal- ing. The ‘Finnish model’ of forest-industrial mod- ernisation is briefly described as a historical con- text whereupon Europeanisation (since the mid- 1980s) and globalisation (since the mid-1990s) have developed as new phases of activity for Finn- ish companies. All these phases, however, are in- tegrally characterised by strong interdependencies across these dominating spatio-temporal scalings and marked by rapidly evolving discursive con- tents. This is the fourth and final frame view of the article: the forest-industrial actors and activi- ties seem to become evaluated in connection to the spatio-temporal scales they are primarily iden- tified with. European companies differ from glo- bal companies and this makes a difference, e.g., in merger negotiations. This tends to confirm and FENNIA 180: 1–2 (2002) 239Globalisation and the Finnish forest sector legitimate the hegemonic historico-spatial prac- tices and, moreover, the direction of reach: glo- balisation becomes the primary goal and even the guiding ideological discourse. The scaling appears as a construction of reference fields (for the com- peting actors) and it proceeds through merit and status assessments. ‘Europe’ (or ‘Finland’), for ex- ample, varies according to each discursive field: ‘Cultural Europe’ differs from ‘Fort Europe’ that refers to political boundaries, and Nokialand can hardly shadow its Finno-Ugric roots (although this may be easier for individual companies). A con- tinuous ideological competition rages between, and within, the dominant spatio-temporal scal- ings. The ‘Finnish model’ illustrates the role of this inter-scaling in forest-industrial practices. The suc- cessful export of this model during the early years of current globalisation seemed to essentially change the model itself. Finland the Forest State turned into an integral part of the Greenbelt of Northern Europe (Lehtinen & Rytteri 1998). Simi- larly, the European Union looked significantly dif- ferent in the new context – more bureaucratic and regulative – from inside than from outside, as Casimir Ehrnrooth (1995), the then leading spokesman for Finnish forest industries, strongly argued. In addition, the global reach of the forest industry suddenly turned into concerns about lo- cal sensitivity. The companies grew big with their transcontinental operations, but were confused by regional cultural variations and local specificities (Hornborg 1998; Ovaskainen et al. 1999; Miet- tinen & Selin 1999). In the following, Finnish forest-industrial firms are analysed within the described framework. The phases of internationalisation (export phase, Eu- ropeanisation, globalisation) are mapped and evaluated as challenges to both Finland and the companies, as well as to the new actors and are- nas of the evolving ‘game’ scene. Exporting Finland During the twentieth century, Finland became in- tegrated in the globalising economy as an export- er of forest-industrial products. The process inten- sified between the World Wars and was not chal- lenged until the rapid rise of information technol- ogy industries in the end of the century. The share of forest products in total exports fell from 37.6 percent in 1990 to 28.9 percent in 1997 and to 29.4 percent in 1999. The Finnish export profile nevertheless still continues to be exceptionally forest-dominated. In other boreal countries with parallel forest-industrial histories the level of ‘for- est dependency’ has stayed below 20 percent of the exports. The respective numbers were 14.9 percent in Sweden and 16.7 percent in Canada in 1996 (Avain... 1998). Most of the world’s forest-industrial production is limited to domestic markets, but Finland has oriented towards export trade. The focus is on the core countries of the European Union: France, Germany, and Great Britain. In 1999, circa 90 percent of the paper produced in Finland was ex- ported. Only Sweden achieved almost the same export level (84%). In Canada, the export share reached 75 percent, while in other paper-produc- ing countries it stayed much lower: slightly be- low 50 percent in France and Germany and be- low 10 percent in the USA and Japan. South Ko- rea reached the export level of 32 percent in 1999 (Forest industry… 2001a). The Finnish emphasis on export is increasingly a matter of scaling. In the framework of the Euro- pean Union, export and import activities between the EU countries are part of the internal trade. The broader spatial view brings up new issues of trade, modifying the coding of forest statistics. It also makes comparisons with federal Canada easier. Consequently, the EU scaling brings along sever- al important changes in forest strategy formula- tions. For example in 1995, when Sweden, Aus- tria, and Finland entered the EU, the Union be- came a net exporter of forest products and the sta- tus of forest-industrial policy rose within the Un- ion. Moreover, Finnish forest experts have devel- oped Pan-European Forest Certification (PEFC) cri- teria for forest management. This has also strengthened the ‘continental scaling’ of forest- based trade (Hazley 2000). During the past few decades, the Finnish forest industry has been internationalised by expanding its production and ownership abroad, especially in Western Europe, but also transcontinentally. In 2000, 43 percent of the paper and board produc- tion capacity of the Finnish companies was still located in Finland, whereas 44 percent was based elsewhere in Europe and 9 percent in the USA (Forest industry… 2001a). In comparison, the pro- duction capacity abroad was circa 10 percent in 1980 (Lammi 2000: 33). The rapid internationali- sation is due to an industrial restructuring which has ranked three Finnish forest industry compa- 240 FENNIA 180: 1–2 (2002)Ari Aukusti Lehtinen nies to the top-twelve list of largest forest indus- try companies in the world (Stora Enso, UPM- Kymmene, and Metsäliitto/M-real) (Fig. 1). The rapid expansion and top ranking of the major Finnish companies owes a lot to the nation- al subsidies prior to the EU membership. The suc- cess was made possible by a combination of nu- merous collaborative linkages and risk-sharing mechanisms within the national context that strengthened the competitiveness of the compa- nies. The companies themselves simultaneously created a successful outward-looking path by broadening their scope from pulp and newsprint towards coated papers, liquid packaging board, and speciality papers. This unique state–compa- ny combination – the ‘Finnish model’ – was the background recipe for the global launch during the late 1990s (Näsi et al. 1998; Koskinen 1999; Donner-Amnell 2000; Moen & Lilja 2001). Simultaneously, the structures of company own- ership went through a major transformation as part of the expansion. Global investors, seeking maximal profit, emerged as influential actors of forest trade. The shareholders followed the com- pany investments keenly, bringing a new layer of sensitivity to the decision-making. During the past few years, the companies have faced a stronger signal to slow down the speed of capital alloca- tion. Behind this pressure have been internation- al investors who react quickly against risky moves of the firms by selling their shares and thus low- ering the stock prices. The setting is crucial to a capital-intensive industry where over-investment has been a repeated problem. Periods of overca- pacity become reflected as fluctuations in price levels and profitability that worry the investors. This is contrary to the earlier Finnish national con- text characterised by less critically supported ex- pansive investment strategies (Moen & Lilja 2001). The current competitive internationalisation is in a state of discordance. The large companies are searching for firm (long-term) market positions and even leadership in selected product groups through mergers and by investing in the renewal of capacity. The investors evaluate every move as a possible signs of eroding (short-term) profitabil- ity. Hence, the companies need to address both the material and symbolic dimensions of paper- making. They need to take risks in order to main- tain or enhance their status in the markets, but, simultaneously, they have to appear as attractive global corporations with market power. The risks of rapid fall in the market are numerous. They emerge increasingly often from the speculative side of trading, as is typical of the current age. The international sphere of speculation is a sig- nificant element behind the current Finnish for- est-industrial policy and an integral part of the company dynamics as an outcome and a price of speeded outward orientation. In the spring of 2000, the share of foreign (that is, non-Finnish) ownership in the three principal Finland-based (‘Finnish’) companies ranged from Stora Enso’s 70 percent to UPM-Kymmene’s 59 percent and Met- sä-Serla/M-real’s 35 percent. It is evident that the American-style ‘shareholder ideology’ has arrived Fig. 1. The world’s largest pa- per and board producers in the fall of 2000; per capacity (Forest industry… 2001a; Lilius & Rantanen 2000). FENNIA 180: 1–2 (2002) 241Globalisation and the Finnish forest sector in European economies, putting considerable pres- sure on the companies to improve their financial attractiveness and short-term profitability (Saasta- moinen 1999; Lammi 2000; Moen & Lilja 2001). Finnish companies in Europe The major Finnish forest companies and the state clearly sought international competitive positions actively. The societal support was considered nec- essary among those involved in national forest- sector politics. Consequently, the companies in- tegrated in the EU ahead of the state of Finland. The initial connection was, of course, the Finnish export orientation, but the actual contextual change took place during the 1980s in the form of expansive continental ownership of production capacity. The Europeanisation was not an easy process for the Finnish companies. The northern newcom- ers were considered outsiders which played with unfair rules, e.g., gained benefits from devalua- tions of the Finnish currency (markka) and kept the domestic production costs (i.e., timber and en- ergy prices and employer expenses) at an artifi- cially low level. The most heated debate, howev- er, was related to overcapacity. The supply of fine paper, magazine papers, and sawn timber had exceeded the demand for several years during the early 1990s, resulting in serious reductions in price levels and in unused capacity of the mills. In France, especially, the paper producers and sawmill managers felt that their economic space was eroded unjustly, and the Finnish ‘invaders’ faced protectionist governmental reactions. The main Finnish forest exporters were therefore in- vited to negotiate with the EU in 1994 in order to solve the serious structural overcapacity problem (Laitinen & Jokelin 1994). The setting changed in 1995, when Finland en- tered the EU together with Sweden and Austria. The era of domestic devaluations of the Finnish markka was over and the EU became a self-suffi- cient exporter of paper. Soon afterwards, the EU founded a central office for the coordination of the forest-industrial benefits. It also specified the role of forest-based industries as one of the trad- ing policy emphases that could benefit from struc- tural funds and internal research programmes (Hazley 2000). The leading Finnish forest companies achieved a firm hold in the continental market. For a while it seemed that the Finnish forest map was to be- come exclusively Western European, with strong regional concentrations in Germany, Great Brit- ain, and France (CD-Fig. 1). This was especially true till 1997. In Europe, outside Finland, UPM-Kymmene (United Paper Mills-Kymmene Inc.) has become an important producer of coated magazine paper in Wales and Scotland, whereas its operations in northern Germany are based on fine paper pro- duction. In addition, the company is an impor- tant producer in France, where it concentrates on pulp, newsprint, and fine paper grades. UPM- Kymmene’s ‘French strategy’ has faced serious drawbacks, however, partially as a consequence of the above-mentioned trade confrontation be- tween Finland and France. A withdrawal from magazine paper production near Rouen in 1997 lessened the company’s visibility in the country. Enso (Enso Gutzeit Inc.) merged with the Swed- ish Stora (Stora Kopparberg Inc.) in 1999. The new company immediately won a place among the three leading paper and board producers in the world. Both companies were among the world’s top ten forest companies already before the merg- er. In Europe, Stora Enso has a strong position in Finland, Sweden, and Germany. During the 1990s, before the merger, Enso had actively in- vested in Germany. It opened a newsprint unit, supplied by recycled fibre, in eastern Germany in 1994 and bought a newsprint and magazine pa- per unit near Karlsruhe a few years later. Stora Enso also owns a sizeable fine-paper unit in the Netherlands. Sawing, traditionally a central ele- ment in Enso’s domestic strategies, now has an- other base in Austria. Stora Enso has activities also in the Baltic countries and Russia. A branch unit Pakenso has invested in cellular board production in Tallinn, Riga, and Palapanovo, south of Mos- cow. Stora Enso has joint operations with its part- ners in the Karelian Republic. There, Ladenso is an important purchaser of timber for the pulp and paper plants in eastern Finland. Stora Enso also inherited Stora’s earlier Europe- an operations, including eight major paper or board plants in Sweden and five large pulp, pa- per, or board units in Germany, Belgium, and France. In addition, the pulp production at Stora Celbi in Portugal is strategically important for the company. The supply of wood for Stora Celbi is based on eucalyptus plantations (Stora… 1998). Metsä-Serla/M-real is another important fine- paper producer in Europe. After the purchase of 242 FENNIA 180: 1–2 (2002)Ari Aukusti Lehtinen Swedish Modo Paper in 2000, it became a conti- nental market leader in this grade (Modo Paperin osto… 2000). Modo Paper has large fine paper units in Sweden, Germany, France, and Austria. The merger was originally accompanied with the plan to sell the production of tissue papers to the Swedish SCA (Svenska Cellulosa Aktiebolag), but the EU Commission prevented this: the SCA’s mar- ket share in tissue papers would have grown too large. The setback caused serious liquidation problems for Metsä-Serla/M-real and it seems to have forced the company to withdraw form mag- azine paper production in southern Germany. During the latter half of 1990s, Metsä-Serla achieved a visible role in the production of coat- ed magazine papers in Germany, thanks to the cooperation with Myllykoski Paper. This alliance is now under reconsideration (Iivonen 2001). Myllykoski Paper, a family-owned company from southern Finland, has succeeded in keeping the ownership in the hands of the Björnberg fam- ily. This has secured some entrepreneurial free- dom and elasticity: decisions are made accord- ing to managerial aims, not for attracting broader ranks of shareholders (Rantanen 2000; Iivonen 2000a). In comparison, Metsä-Serla/M-real is very dependent on the cooperative organization of Finnish forest owners (Metsäliitto) that aims at keeping the major shareholder’s voice heard in the company (Seppänen 2000). Ahlstrom Industries has a highly specialised production profile and a well-established trans- continental production network that deviates strikingly from the volume-based strategies of the other companies. Ahlstrom’s notable paper units in Germany and northern Italy produce industri- al filter papers, package covers, and some other special paper grades (Ollikainen 2000). The Europeanisation was generally a natural and necessary step for the Finnish companies. New limits and risks soon emerged, however. This was primarily due to the emerging stronger regu- lative interests of the EU. In the eyes of the forest industry, the Union had become a bureaucratic unit that did not develop enough its competitive advantages within the global spatial division of labour (Ehrnrooth 1995). The last years of the twentieth century consequently witnessed a new emphasis on transcontinental relations and oper- ations. Transcontinental operations The active globalisation of the Finnish companies is a novel phenomenon, but it was not launched without earlier contacts and experiments in trans- continental production. Past experiences evident- ly had a significant influence on the new strate- gies that varied from one company to another. The overseas success of Ahlstrom Industries was due to a strict concentration on special papers, mainly industrial filters. The strategy was based on flexible customer orientation. This recipe has proved useful in Europe, Brazil, South Korea, and the USA. Among the other Finnish companies, only Myllykoski has long-term overseas experi- ence. In 1980, Myllykoski bought a paper mill (Madison Paper) in Maine, USA, following a cus- tomer’s demand: The New York Times, after acci- dentally discovering the special quality of Myl- lykoski’s magazine paper, sought closer coopera- tion. Myllykoski is still the local supplier to the journal’s special Sunday issues. After two decades of low profile in the USA, Myllykoski announced a new move in 2000: Madison Paper bought an old (recycled fibre -based), bankrupt newsprint unit in Chicago. As in Maine, the aim is to replace the old machinery and invest in the production of coated magazine papers (Iivonen 2000b). Initially, however, Enso was the first Finnish for- est company to start transatlantic cooperation in wood processing. The project, begun already dur- ing the 1960s, gradually turned into Enso’s major ownership of Eurocan Pulp & Paper in British Co- lumbia, Canada. The company concentrated on saw milling and kraft paper production. After eco- nomic and political setbacks, Enso withdrew from British Columbia in the early 1990s. The difficul- ties were partly related to the growing local envi- ronmental concerns regarding the company’s clear fellings (Brax 1991). The merger with Stora in 1999 nevertheless brought Enso back to trans- atlantic paper processing: Stora had long experi- ence in Eastern Canada (Hornborg 1998). The new Stora Enso soon expanded over to the US markets by purchasing Consolidated Paper (in 2000), an influential actor in the Great Lakes area. At the time of the merger, the combined enter- prise was announced to be the world’s largest pro- ducer of paper and board by capacity, reaching 15 million tons per year of mainly magazine pa- pers (Lindberg 2000). Stora Enso’s inheritance from its constituent companies included Stora’s footholds in Canada, FENNIA 180: 1–2 (2002) 243Globalisation and the Finnish forest sector Brazil, and China, and Enso’s orientation towards Indonesia. In Borneo, Enso has a 20-year project of tree plantations (mainly Acasia) that utilises the logged areas of rain forests. The cooperation is organised as a joint venture called PT Finnatara Intiga. Its owners are Inhutani III, the state com- pany of Indonesia (40% of the shares), Gudang Garamin, with a Chinese background (30%), and Enso (30%). Their aim is to establish a pulp plant on the island in the near future. Stora Enso also owns 20 percent of the shares of Advanced Argo which processes eucalyptus plantations into pulp in Thailand. In addition, Stora Enso controls half of the shares of a large pulp plant in Aracruz, Bra- zil, which is planned to be expanded in the near future. This cooperation is a signal of the rising global importance of pulp production in South America (Nousiainen 1996; Kuvaja et al. 1998; Forest industry… 2001b). During the last few years of globalisation, the most active and visible of the Finnish forest com- panies has been UPM-Kymmene that had practi- cally no overseas experience before 1997. Per- haps due to the limited experience, its leaps over to Southeast Asia and the USA have resulted in partial drawbacks, and the real transcontinental breakthrough had not taken place by the spring of 2001. The North American strategy was initiat- ed by purchasing a paper mill (Blandin Paper) in Minnesota in 1997. This move strengthened the company’s leading global ranking in the produc- tion of coated paper for magazines, although the purchase was expensive and loaded with risks due to old machinery, low profitability, and supply problems. The purchase, however, made UPM- Kymmene an internal actor in the US markets (Miettinen 1997). The landing of UPM-Kymmene in the USA was soon planned to be followed by a merger with Champion International, a company not much smaller than the Finnish partner. The two compa- nies’ boards had already agreed to the merger, but it became seriously contested by International Pa- per, the world’s largest forest industry enterprise. Even more seriously, the shareholders and the mill communities expressed their worries over the merger with a European company. After a few dra- matic weeks in the spring of 2000, International Paper made a better offer, leading the sharehold- ers of Champion International repeal the earlier agreement. The widely publicized merger plan that included a symbolically significant name change (UPM-Kymmene was to become Cham- pion International) hence turned into a serious backlash for the Finnish company (Lilius 2000a, 2000b; Meadows 2000). This backlash forced UPM-Kymmene to recon- sider its transatlantic strategy. It is therefore likely that the future steps become smaller and better prepared. The aim will be the same, however: to win a secure position in North America. This was in fact confirmed in the early fall of 2000 when UPM-Kymmene announced a purchase of Repap in New Brunswick, Canada. Repap was a deeply indebted company that had been for sale for years, but its main product, magazine paper, suits well the purchaser’s profile. UPM-Kymmene initiated its Southeast Asian operations also in 1997. The company announced a cooperation plan with Asia Pacific Resources International (April) in fine paper production and marketing. The initial plan included a joint foun- dation of a paper unit close to a pulp mill in Riau in Sumatra, Indonesia. It was rejected, however, due to the economic recession in Southeast Asia during the last years of the century. The plan was also severely criticised by a network of local and global rainforest conservationists (Kuvaja et al. 1997; Miettinen & Selin 1998), possibly affecting the withdrawal. The April cooperation, however, resulted in UPM-Kymmene’s ownership in a fine paper mill near Shanghai, China. Its future suc- cess is highly dependent on China’s political sta- bility. The Southeast Asian project has tied UPM- Kymmene into economic cultures and resource policies that differ from the Western ones. This makes the company vulnerable to risks that arise from the culture gap. The most worrying issues are related to undemocratic political practices, hu- man rights, and the continuing exploitative dev- astation of rain forests. For a Western company this means entrepreneurial risks, but also new marketing problems due to the rising global awareness of the consumers. The most transcontinental of the Finnish forest companies is Jaakko Pöyry that has specialised in forest-industrial consulting. In the late 1990s, the company had offices in over 20 countries, with regional clusters of consultation in South Ameri- ca, Europe, Southeast Asia, and the USA. Jaakko Pöyry concentrates on country- or area-specific “Forest Sector Master Plans” that cover consultan- cy from forestry practices, wood processing, and logistics to market and management development with an aim at expansive pulp and paper produc- 244 FENNIA 180: 1–2 (2002)Ari Aukusti Lehtinen tion. The Master Plans are programmes for inten- sifying wood mobilisation and paper production in the client countries. Recent clients include Bra- zil, Nepal, Russia, and many of the Southeast Asian countries. The programmes have functioned as tools for introducing Finnish expertise to the clients. In many cases, the Finnish companies spe- cialised in different branches of forest expertise (from reforestation and tree plantations to the whole chain of forest industrial machinery, such as forest tractors, entire plant units, and integrates) have initially arrived in the target countries as sub- contractors of the Master Plans. Both the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Finnish development cooperation agency FINNIDA have supported this cooperation finan- cially (Ulvila 1997; Lehtinen 1999). Local and global Finland The gradual globalisation of the forest sector is loaded with risks and drama – at least if observed from Finland, a country with a strong historical dependency on forests. The Finnish know-how spreads in different parts of the world and the ‘Finnish model’ is applied to joint projects. The overseas success and visibility of Finnish forest companies is undoubtedly one central element of the Finnish globalisation. The world map of for- estry is made partly by Finnish expertise. The forest-based globalisation has a dark side, however. The leading companies can no longer integrate any local or national premises into their strategies, as they did earlier (Koskinen 1999; Kor- telainen 1999b; Rytteri 2000). This would now cost too much for their competitiveness. Similar- ly, Finland’s position has changed during the on- going transnational networking of paper produc- tion and company ownership. In the new spatial division of labour, Finland might keep its role as a home base for some key companies. It might also remain an important supply and production area for these companies. Finland will evidently exist on the world map of the companies as a re- source base and an area of mass production, a supplier of virginal fibre and selected paper grades. The setting is framed by Finland’s geo- graphical location in the boreal coniferous zone, providing the market with long-fibred pulp. Fin- land is also part of the EU’s northern wilderness and a bridge to the forest resources of north-west- ern Russia. The wilderness role of Finland within the EU has added a new dimension to the setting. The EU’s environmental regulation that emerges, e.g., in the form of Natura programmes and Greenbelt visions (CD-Fig. 2), functions as a risk signal to the companies. They therefore invest abroad, be- yond Europe. This brings along the risk of slower modernisation rates in domestic production tech- nology. The problem of stagnation in wood processing design therefore arises. The companies still hold a key position in national forest econom- ic policy, however. This tends to keep Finnish for- est-industrial activities deeply integrated in the international division of paper production. The export orientation is thus structurally determined, and especially the country’s leading forestry prov- inces remain vulnerable to fluctuations in pulp and paper markets. This translocalisation process is not only a mat- ter of changing roles within a broader spatial di- vision of labour. It is also loaded with symbolism. For example: precise identification of the largest forest companies has become difficult. During the era of globalisation, it is misleading to talk about ‘Finnish’ companies when referring to those com- panies from Finland that are largely owned by US American investors and whose central production capacity is located abroad. This confusion is ob- vious in the names of the companies and the con- tested renaming during mergers and acquisitions. Often the purchaser ‘swallows’ the one purchased and its name or trademark simply disappears off the market. Some names, however, are combina- tions or compromises of names that incorporate the past of the merged companies. Stora Enso has a Swedish-Finnish background and even some specific localities can be distinguished behind the names: Stora Kopperberget originates from a min- ing locality in central Sweden (Axelsson et al. 1980), whereas Enso is an industrial town in the territory ceded to the Soviet Union after World War II and now called Svetogorsk (Kortelainen & Kotilainen 2000). Of course, the naming is (only) a matter of sym- bolic significance and easily ignored when set against hard economic benefits. During the merg- er negotiations in North America in the spring of 2000, UPM-Kymmene was ready to take the name of Champion International. ‘Kymmene’, however, relates the company to its Finnish roots: the val- ley of the Kymi River (in Swedish, Kymmene) is a central part of Finland’s forest-industrial history. The use of the Swedish name reminds of the ori- FENNIA 180: 1–2 (2002) 245Globalisation and the Finnish forest sector gins of the company’s initial capital that came from Finland’s Swedish-speaking entrepreneurs. This capital was unified with the majority popu- lation’s forest capital in 1995, when UPM- Kymmene was established. The historical merger wiped away the deep-rooted confrontations be- tween the two leading private forest industry groups in Finland (Näsi et al. 1998). The other Finnish global forest actors also carry similar pasts in their names: Ahlstrom is a name of a family, Jaakko Pöyry refers to an individual, and Myllykoski is also related to family ownership. Metsä-Serla/M-real has roots partly in Serlachius, a family company integrated in the operations of the Finnish forest owners’ Metsäliitto in 1986. In the winter of 2001, soon after Metsä-Serla’s reori- entation towards fine paper production, the com- pany announced its new name, M-real, which can be seen a symbolical disengagement from the past. For the consumers, Serla stands for tissue papers and washroom convenience, whereas the new M- real is a key actor in fine paper in Europe. In ad- dition, the Finnish word metsä (forest) connects Finland generally to its eastern Finno-Ugric past. The importance of the companies’ initial local- ities and ‘founding fathers’ underlines the value of symbolism and cultural continuity within for- est-industrial restructuring. Most of the symbolic connections have disappeared during the mergers, however. Only few of the localities are still repre- sented. This is a striking contrast to the era of na- tional forest sector, when the company names were closely related to their main operational bas- es or the companies were named after the towns: Oulu had Oulu Inc. and Kajaani had Kajaani Inc. Even Nokia Inc., a global actor in telecommuni- cations business, has its roots in a small forest company in the mill town of Nokia near Tampere. The local and family pasts of the companies are also loaded with memories not so willingly re- called. Towns with only one significant industrial employer were often paternalistic communities, where the companies, local elites, and townspeo- ple behaved single-mindedly (e.g., Solecki 1995; Kortelainen 1999b). Public disagreement was sometimes unthinkable. In this respect, the North American experience of UPM-Kymmene was im- portant: the patrimonial tradition was broken, when the shareholders’ interest overcame that of the top managers. Recently, the rules of global financial specula- tion have emphasised the role of shareholders at the cost of leading managers, affecting the com- pany identification. Today, the owners keenly steer the managers and changing strategies cause rap- id shifts in the stock markets. Often the owners seek the best short-term options, which can run counter to the long-term benefits of the compa- ny. From another perspective, this shift may be regarded as an opening towards more participa- tory decision-making in the forest-industrial poli- cy. Even the minor owners have a vote in the meetings and critical issues can thus be brought to the agenda. All this can be considered posi- tive, at least if set against the old patrimonial mod- el of decision-making in company towns. Depending on the shareholder interest, the cur- rent reshaping of the forest companies can take radically different paths. The practices may be- come more accountable and polyphonic or, more likely, they may move towards increasingly ag- gressive private profit maximation. As the past decades show, however, the former alternative can only surface with the help of non-governmen- tal organizations (NGOs) and intergovernmental regulations (see Jamison 1996). The ethical dimen- sion needs to be publicized and made a routine measure of forest trade via negotiation processes. Some preliminary steps towards this direction have been taken already in the shareholder meet- ings of UPM-Kymmene, where environmental ac- tivists have raised their voices as minor owners of the company, directing the debate towards eth- ical and eco-social challenges of the company profilation (e.g., Lilius 2000a) (Fig. 2). Forest trade and green images Globalisation has made environmental values in- tegral elements of forest trade. In order to secure their market share, the companies need to address their environmental performance and profile. This is also true for the Finnish companies. They have become cautious of the political risks of loggings in the old-growth forests, because today’s con- sumers want to know the origin of timber. The val- ue preferences become concrete for the forest companies via such customers as the leading newspapers, journals, producers, and media houses. In the name of their interest in circula- tion and profit, they wish to minimise the new environmental (and economic) risk. Hence, read- er responses and even boycott risks increasingly condition forest-industrial strategies (Fürstner 1996; Lehtinen 1996). 246 FENNIA 180: 1–2 (2002)Ari Aukusti Lehtinen The transnational companies have not been able to free themselves from the intensifying com- petition while becoming bigger than ever. They are subjected to changes in their operational con- texts and networks. This makes the companies vulnerable to varying contextual shifts – and also to their own strategies. Wrong moves in global competition turn easily into falling profit options and losses in the stock markets and even difficul- ties within the markets of the end products. The global economy thus seems to become more frag- ile over time. In the 1990s, the fate of the remaining old- growth forests emerged as an aching issue in Fin- land’s forestry (Lehtinen & Rytteri 1998). As seen from Central Europe, these forests are among the last remaining natural areas of the entire conti- nent. The consumers of Finnish paper are aware of this and the most marginal lands of the North have occasionally emerged as ‘hot spots’ of con- sumer politics. Similarly, broader social and ethi- cal issues concerning the legitimation and justice dimensions of paper production have been intro- duced to the companies as critical aspects of glo- balisation. The problems of uneven and unjust de- velopment have emerged both in Finnish domes- tic settings and overseas, and now at stake is not only the green image of the companies. Instead, the role of the whole of Finland and its national credibility are weighed in the global division of labour. The problem of credibility is entangled in the issue of forest certifications. Originally, they were introduced as a means to guarantee the respect of sustainability and biodiversity concerns in eco- nomic forests and that certain areas of old-growth forests would be left untouched. Later, however, it has been debated whether the certifications should also cover such social criteria as the wealth of logging communities and forest work- Fig. 2. A nature activist sat on a bench of top councellors at the UPM-Kymmene company meeting and was proposed by another shareholder-activist an alternative candidate to Martti Ahtisaari, the former president of Finland, to be elected to the company’s board. The activist Thomas Wallgren lost the election (0.25% of the voters supported and 99.75% opposed him), but the event redirected the discussion towards the risky features of vested state–company interests during the era of globalisation. Consequently, the practical mode and ethics of exporting the ‘Finnish model’ was widely debated in the media after the meeting. From left to right: Martin Granholm, Juha Niemelä, Gustaf Serlachius, Iiro Viinanen, Tauno Matomäki, and Thomas Wallgren. (Published in Helsingin Sanomat 22 March 2000, front news page A3. Reprinted by the permission of Lehtikuva Oy.) FENNIA 180: 1–2 (2002) 247Globalisation and the Finnish forest sector ers and the general eco-social viability of the en- tire chain of forest-based production and con- sumption. This is indeed a contested process which has brought several difficult and yet unre- solved dilemmas into the global forest map (e.g., Beckley 1996; Rees 1999; Barnes et al. 1999) In Northern Europe, there are two competing systems of forest certification. The Pan-European Forest Certification (PEFC) is an intergovernmen- tal forest certification process guided by Finnish expertise. The model concentrates on forest man- agement and aims at guaranteeing the sound ori- gin of timber. Changes in forest cover and health, lumber production, non-timber values, diversity and conservation issues, and the socio-economic aspects of forest management are highlighted. For- est Stewardship Council (FSC) certification is sup- ported by several international environmental or- ganisations. The Council has included several so- cial factors into its certification procedure and the participatory dimension of forest planning and wood processing is underlined in particular. The long-term socio-economic well-being of forest workers and forestry-dependent communities must be confirmed via negotiations and consul- tations with people and groups directly involved in, and affected by, the operations. In the case of loss or damage that affects the legal or custom- ary rights of local people, a fair compensation mechanism is demanded (Ahas et al. 1999; Lloyd 2001). FSC is the more proactive one of the two sys- tems, whereas PEFC proceeds more reactively, emphasising the certification as a means of mar- keting (Salmela 2000). In general, it seems that the ecological concern has become widely ac- cepted as a conditioner of the forest trade while the broader eco-social dimension still causes con- fusion. The ongoing debate is intensive, even though the result seems largely clear already: the broad- er eco-social criteria are to be implemented into the assessments of the sustainability of wood processing and refining. As a telling signal of the setting, WWF Europe and several other environ- mental civic organisations published a series of claims addressed to PEFC in April of 2000. First- ly, the civic organisations demand PEFC to show that it actually leads towards better forest man- agement and not only to a confirmation – i.e., greenwashing – of the differing national and lo- cal practices already in use. Secondly, PEFC has to follow the Local Agenda 21 directions, agreed by the meeting of the United Nations’ Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and include the de- mands of broader participation in the criteria. This claim is related to the accused dominance of in- dustrial and private forest owners’ interests in PEFC-based cooperation. Thirdly, PEFC has to look beyond Europe and include global forest is- sues in its views. The European scope, as PEFC’s critics say, should necessarily be linked to Eura- sian and transatlantic issues, as well as to global North–South relations (Asunta 2000). The certification debate has emerged as a cen- tral element in the current restructuring of the for- est trade. The forest practices and production processes are followed keenly and demands of accountability and broader participation have be- come difficult to ignore. For the forest companies this means adjustment to the changing rules of the global game: the previously excluded costs of pro- duction are now becoming part of the business. This might appear as a major threat for some com- panies, but it can also be regarded as a means to conquer new markets. To conclude The analysis underlines the necessity to include the previously ignored eco-social costs of eco- nomic restructuring in the calculations of actor- and product-specific credibility. The forest indus- try is part of this reorientation, as the heated ne- gotiations for the criteria and certificates of sus- tainability suggest. The main forest companies – as the key actors of change – have become em- bedded in a global ranking competition that tends to keep the new eco-social openings in the mar- gins. We are therefore left with some critical dilem- mas. Volume-based expansion through mergers has become the guiding principle for the forest- industrial globalisation, but not without obvious exceptions. There still is life behind the main ac- tors of the global stock markets, including some entrepreneurial creativity, as the profiles of Ahl- strom and Myllykoski indicate. But how to secure the variety in the future, if the large companies keep eating the small ones with some financial attractiveness? The question is also important to peripheral forest resource communities, such as the provinces of the so-called Forest Finland: what is left of the regional (horizontal) dynamics when 248 FENNIA 180: 1–2 (2002)Ari Aukusti Lehtinen these provinces become thoroughly integrated in the companies with global vertical power and, accordingly, are located in the New Wood Order as producers of pulp and bulk? On the other hand, the growing shareholder interest in forest-industrial operations can also provide an alternative to the older managerial model of decision-making, as the UPM-Kymme- ne–Champion International case in the spring of 2000 demonstrated. This episode was an impor- tant lesson for the Finnish partners and it under- lined the practical power of shareholders. Inevi- tably, it made the managers of the Finland-based companies more sensitive to the voices of the ‘ex- ternal’ owners. The lesson can hence be taken as a sign of emerging socio-cultural pluralism – shareholder democracy – in the forest-industrial goal formulation. The floor is at least open to broader representativeness, including socio-eco- logical views, as UPM-Kymmene has witnessed during the past few years. Clearly, the managers of the Finnish forest in- dustry – as those of the forest sector in general – have much to learn from the experiences gathered during the first years of intensive globalisation. The ‘Finnish model’, however, undoubtedly con- tains much that is also worth exporting. The long history of society–company negotiations and en- vironmental pressures have left their mark on the domestic forest know-how. These experiences should decidedly be integrated in the current glo- bal learning process. It is already evident that, along the globalisation, the Finnish model – or the Nordic model in general (see Lehtinen 2001b) – is increasingly challenged by the North American and Tropical counterparts which differ considera- bly from their regulative norms and measures typ- ical of the Nordic countries. Little debate has emerged about the comparative pros and cons between the models, however. There is no clear idea to what degree the Finnish companies are exporting their model and to what degree they are adopting the models and cultures of the target countries. Not much is known about the actual compromises of the competing approaches. The intensive globalisation of the Finnish for- est companies nevertheless forces us to face the transcontinental comparative settings. The proc- ess simultaneously expands and shrinks the world and demands its residents to take a stance on the local–global dynamics and eco-social transforma- tions. From a geographical point of view this is indeed a challenging horizon. REFERENCES Ahas R, T Puura, A Janssen & E Peters (eds) (1999). Boreal forests of the world IV: integrating cultur- al values into local and global forest protection. Proceedings of the 4th biannual conference of the Taiga Rescue Network, October 5–10, 1998, Tar- tu, Estonia. Estonian Green Movement, Tartu. Asunta A (2000). Ympäristöjärjestöt eivät pidä PEFC-sertifiointijärjestelmää uskottavana. WWF metsätiedote 1–2, 4. Avain Suomen metsäteollisuuteen (1998). Metsä- teollisuus ry, Helsinki. Axelsson B, S Berger & J Hogdal (1980). Vikman- shyttan: lära för framtida bruk. En bok om stu- diearbete, frigörelser och Stora Koppparberg. Ver- dandi, Uppsala. Barnes T, R Hayter & E Hay (1999). “Too young to retire, too bloody old to work”: forest in- dustry restructuring and community response in Port Alberni, British Columbia. The Forestry Chronicle 75, 781–787. Beckley T (1996). Pluralism by default: Commu- nity power in a paper mill town. Forest Science 42, 35–45. Brax A (1991). Enso-Gutzeit haluaisi hakata intiaa- nien pyhän erämaan. Vihreä Lanka 25, 4 (20 June 1991). Brown L & C Flavin (1999). Uusi vuosisata – uusi talousmalli. In Starke L (ed). Maailman tila 1999, 13–32. Gaudeamus, Helsinki. Collins L (1998). Environmentalism and restruc- turing of the global pulp and paper industry. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geo- grafie 89, 401–415. Conley V (1995). Ecopolitics. The environment in poststructuralist thought. Routledge, London. Donner-Amnell J (2000). Suomi ja metsäteollisuuden muodonmuutos. Kansainvälistymisen vaikutukset yhteiskunnan ja metsäyhtiöiden valintoihin. Alue & ympäristö 29: 2, 4–22. Ehrnrooth C (1995). Euroopassa tarvitaan täysin uusia kasvun ja työllisyyden strategioita. Työt- tömyyden perussyy on liian heikko kil- pailukyky. Helsingin Sanomat 5 February 1995, B9. Forest industry statistics (2001a). Forest Industries Finland. 15 January 2001. Forest industry statistics (2001b). Forest Industries Sweden. 15 January 2001. Fürstner W (1996). The publishers’ view on eco- certification. A paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Finnish Forestry Association, Helsinki, 26 March 1996. Mimeo. Hazley C (2000). Forest-based and related indus- tries of the European Union – industrial districts, clusters and agglomerations. The Research Insti- tute of the Finnish Economy (ETLA), Helsinki. Hornborg A (1998). Mi’kmaq environmentalism: FENNIA 180: 1–2 (2002) 249Globalisation and the Finnish forest sector local incentives and global projections. In Sand- berg A & S Sörlin (eds). Sustainability the chal- lenge. People, power and the environment, 202– 212. Black Rose Books, Montréal. Iivonen J (2000a). Myllykoski maksaa vanhasta tehtaasta USA:ssa 268 miljoonaa. Helsingin Sa- nomat 14 April 2000, D6. Iivonen J (2000b). Myllykoski rakentaa Saksaan uuden sanomalehtipaperikoneen. Helsingin Sa- nomat 23 December 2000, D3. Iivonen J (2001). Metsänomistajien on myytävä omaisuuttaan Myllykoskelle. Helsingin Sanomat 5 May 2001, D1. Jamison A (1996). The shaping of the global envi- ronmental agenda: the role of non-governmen- tal organizations. In Lash S, B Szerszynski & B Wynne (eds). Risk, environment & modernity, 224–245. Sage, London. Kortelainen J (1999a). The river as an actor-net- work: the Finnish forest industry utilization of lake and river systems. Geoforum 30, 235–247. Kortelainen J (1999b). Forest industry communi- ties – in the light or shadow of the mill? In Reunala A, I Tikkanen & E Åsvik (eds). The Green Kingdom. Finland’s forest cluster, 208– 213. Otava & Metsämiesten Säätiö Foundation, Helsinki. Kortelainen J & J Kotilainen (2000). Svetogorsk re- visited: on the impacts of the border on a Rus- sian forest industrial locality. A paper present- ed at the 2nd Workshop of Border Research Net- work in Aabenraa, Denmark, 25–27 May. Koskinen T (1999). The forest cluster: economic order and societal integration in Finland. In Reu- nala A, I Tikkanen & E Åsvik (eds). The Green Kingdom. Finland’s forest cluster, 202–207. Ota- va & Metsämiesten Säätiö Foundation, Helsin- ki. Kuvaja S, M Ulvila & T Wallgren (eds) (1998). Tropiikin vihreä kulta. Like, Helsinki. Laitinen P & R Jokelin (1994). Paperisota lähestyy pakkosopua. Helsingin Sanomat 25 January 1994, D1. Lammi M (2000). Metsäklusteri Suomen taloudessa. The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy (ETLA), Helsinki. Lehtinen A (1996). Tales from the northern back- woods: fairy tales and conspirators in Finnish forest politics. In Hjort af Ornäs A (ed). Ap- proaching nature from local communities. Secu- rity perceived and achieved, 37–57. Research Programme on Environmental Policy and So- ciety (EPOS), Linköping. Lehtinen A (1999). Metsäsektori ja maailmantalous. In Westerholm J & P Raento (eds). Suomen kar- tasto, 156–159. Suomen Maantieteellinen Seura & WSOY, Helsinki. Lehtinen A (2000). Mires as mirrors. Peatlands – hybrid landscapes of the north. Fennia 178, 125–137. Lehtinen A (2001a). Modernization and the concept of nature. On the reproduction of environmental stereotypes. In Myllyntaus T & M Saikku (eds). Encountering the past in nature. Essays in envi- ronmental history, 29–48. Ohio University Press, Athens. Lehtinen A (2001b). Nordic forest communities, vulnerability and the question of environmen- tal justice. A view from geography. In Hytönen M (ed). Socio-economic sustainablity of forestry, 315–332. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenha- gen. Lehtinen A & T Rytteri (1998). Backwoods’ pro- vincialism: the case of Kuusamo Forest Com- mon. Nordia 27, 27–37. Lilius A (2000a). Voittajaksi valmistautumassa. Ta- louselämä 12, 36. Lilius A (2000b). UPM-Kymmenen pakko maksaa lisää. Talouselämä 16, 8. Lilius A & E Rantanen (2000). Forest industry. For- ests still enticing investors. Talouselämä, a spe- cial issue in English, 22 August 2000, 18–19. Lindberg L (2000). Finnish forest cluster links glo- bal markets. Paper and Timber 82, 146–148. Lloyd S (2001). The emerging socio-economic and ecological forest landscape in Sweden. In Hytönen M (ed). Socio-economic sustainability of forestry, 277–294. Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. Mather A (1990). Global forest resources. Bel- haven, London. McAfee K (1999). Selling nature to save it? Biodi- versity and green developmentalism. Environ- ment and Planning D: Society and Space 17, 133–154. Meadows D (2000). A rational decision. Tappi Journal 83: 7, 3. Miettinen A (1997). UPM maksaa kovan hinnan USA:n tehtaasta. Helsingin Sanomat 1 October 1997, B7. Miettinen O & T Selin (1999). Harkittu riski. UPM- Kymmene Indonesian sademetsissä. Vihreä Sivis- tysliitto, Helsinki. Modo Paperin osto on loikka eteenpäin (2000). Metsäliiton viesti 2, 2–5. Moen E & K Lilja (2001). Constructing global cor- porations: contrasting national legacies in the Nordic forest industry. In Morgan G, PH Kris- tensen & R Whitley (eds). Organizing interna- tionally: Restructuring firms and markets in the global economy, 145–168. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Murdoch J, T Marsden & J Banks (2000). Quality, nature, and embeddedness: some theoretical considerations in the context of the food sec- tor. Economic Geography 76, 107–125. Nousiainen A (1996). Enso haluaa Borneoon sel- lutehtaan. Helsingin Sanomat 29 September 1996, B14. Näsi J, P Ranta & P Sajasalo (1998). Metsäteollisuu- den megamuutos. Pelinäkökulmainen analyysi 250 FENNIA 180: 1–2 (2002)Ari Aukusti Lehtinen suomalaisen metsäteollisuuden kehkeytymispro- sesseista vuosina 1985–1996. Jyväskylän yliopis- ton taloustieteellinen osasto, julkaisuja 114. Ollikainen H (2000). Täältä tullaan, markkinat. Ta- louselämä 14, 49. Ovaskainen O, M Pappila & J Pötry (1999). The Finnish forest industry in Russia. On the thorny paths towards ecological and social responsibili- ty. The Finnish Nature League, Helsinki. Peet R & M Watts (1996). Liberation ecology. Devel- opment, sustainability, and environment in an age of market triumphalism. In Peet R & M Watts (eds). Liberation ecologies. Environment, development, social movements, 1–45. Routledge, London. Rantanen E (2000). Metsä-Serlan oli pakko ostaa. Talouselämä 21, 9. Rees M (1999). “Jobs talk”: retreating from the so- cial sustainability of forestry communities. The Forestry Chronicle 75, 755–763. Rytteri T (2000). Metsäteollisuuden yhteiskunnal- linen vastuu. Alue & ympäristö 29: 1, 5–17 Saastamoinen O (1999). Strategies of the Scandi- navian forest industries. In Saastamoinen O, A Chuinsky & I Torniainen (eds). Economic prob- lems of the forest complex of Northwest Russia during a transition period. Proceedings of the workshop in St. Petersburg Forest Technical Acad- emy, February 11–13, 5–15. Forest Technical Academy, St. Petersburg. Saether B (1998). Environmental improvements in the Norwegian pulp and paper industry – from place and government to space and market. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift, 52, 181–194. Salmela S (2000). Sertifiointi tekee metsästä merk- kituotteen, jota on lupa kuluttaa. Karjalainen 20 March 2000, 10. Sandberg A & S Sörlin (1998). Rearticulating the en- vironment: towards a pluralist vision of natural resource use. In Sanberg A & S Sörlin (eds). Sus- tainability the challenge. People, power and the environment, 1–16. Black Rose Books, Montréal. Seppänen P (2000). Strategia on, toteutus ontuu. Ta- louselämä 13, 42. Solecki W (1996). Paternalism, pollution and pro- test in a company town. Political Geography 15, 5–20. Stora environmental report 1997 (1998). Stora Kop- parberg’s Bergslags Aktiebolag, Falun. Tirkkonen J (2000). Ilmastopolitiikka ja ekologinen modernisaatio. Diskursiivinen tarkastelu suoma- laisesta ilmastopolitiikasta ja sen yhteydestä met- säsektorin muutokseen. Acta Universitatis Tampe- rensis 781. Tikkanen O (1997). Karjalan vihreä vyöhyke. Alue & ympäristö 26: 1, 60–67. Ulvila M (1997). Indonesiasta löytyy halpaa kuitua ja joustava lainsäädäntö. UPM-Kymmene sijoit- taa sademetsien hävitykseen. Ydin 7, 5–8. Whatmore S & L Thorne (1998). Wild(er)ness: re- configuring the geographies of wildlife. Transac- tions, Institute of British Geographers 23, 435– 454. Zimmerer K (2000). The reworking of conserva- tion geographies: nonequilibrium landscapes and nature-society hybrids. Annals of the Asso- ciation of American Geographers 90, 356–369.