Small-scale Forestry

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 559–578 | Cite as

Non-industrial Private Forestry Service Markets in a Flux: Results from a Qualitative Analysis on Finland

Research Paper


Previous research on European forestry service markets is scarce and mainly focused on analysing external market environment and modelling of timber selling behaviour of non-industrial forest owners (NIPFs). In this study, we aim to create a broader understanding about business perspectives of forestry service markets covering the whole array of market and institutional based services offered to the NIPFs in case of Finland. The more specific empirical objective of the paper is to describe market drivers and underlying challenges in existing and potential service business models based on the concepts of service-dominant logic and dynamic capabilities. Using a qualitative approach and 22 thematic expert interviews in service organisations, we strive to analyse the drivers and opportunities for creating new services within the NIPF market and also build insight in possible barriers for new service value creation. According to our results, the ongoing structural changes offer new opportunities to change traditional mindsets and search for new types of offerings that support the renewal of this traditional forestry sector. As one of the major barriers for new innovations we identified the dominant role of established organisations securing their current positions, mainly driven by the forest industry timber procurement needs. From a managerial perspective, the changing institutional base of the current service organisations may facilitate new innovative business start-ups in addition to enhancing the strategic capabilities and competitiveness of the established firms in Finnish forestry sector.


Forestry value-chain Service innovation Service marketing Service dominant logic 



Financial support from FP-SERVE project funded by the Finnish Innovation Agency (Tekes) during 2010–2012 is gratefully acknowledged. We also thank for reviewers of this journal, as well as participants of the IUFRO 5.10 Conference on Forest Products Marketing in Corvallis, Oregon, USA (June 2011) and Scandinavian Society of Forest Economists in Hyytiälä, Finland (May 2012), for their constructive comments. All remaining errors are our own.


  1. Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manage 17(1):99–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berghäll S (2003) Developing and testing a two-dimensional concept of commitment: explaining the relationship perceptions of an individual in a marketing Dyad. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Forest Economics, University of Helsinki. 122 ppGoogle Scholar
  3. Buttoud G, Kouplevatskaya-Buttoud I, Slee B, Weiss G (2011) Barriers to institutional learning and innovations in the forest sector in Europe: markets, policies and stakeholders. For Policy Econ 13(1):124–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eisenhardt K, Schoonhoven C (1996) Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation: strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organ Sci 7(2):136–150Google Scholar
  5. Finnish Act on Forest Inventory Information (Laki Suomen metsäkeskuksen metsätietojärjestelmästä 6.5.2011/419) (referred: 27.10.2011)
  6. Gallouj F (2002) Knowledge-intensive business services: processing knowledge and producing innovation. In: Cadrey J, Gallouj F (eds) Productivity, innovation and knowledge in services. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 256–284Google Scholar
  7. Gallouj F, Savona M (2010) Towards a theory of innovation in services: a state of the art. In: Falloj F, Djella F (eds) The handbook of innovation and services—a multi-disciplinary perspective. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 27–48Google Scholar
  8. Grönroos C (2008) Service logic revisited: who creates value? And who co-creates? Eur Bus Rev 20(4):298–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hänninen H (2011a) Yksityismetsien rooli puumarkkinoilla Suomessa. Suomalais-venäläinen Päättäjien metsäfoorumi 7.6.2011, Majvik, Kirkkonummi, esitelmäkalvot. (referred 16.8.2011)
  10. Hänninen H (2011b) Yksityismetsänomistuksen rakenne. Metsätehon iltapäiväseminaari 14.5.2011, Helsinki, esitelmäkalvot. (referred 7.10.2011)
  11. Hänninen H, Karppinen H, Leppänen J (2011) Suomalainen metsänomistaja. Working papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 2008. Available:
  12. Heinonen K, Strandvik T, Mickelsson K-J, Edvardsson B, Sundström E (2010) A customer-dominant logic of service. J Serv Manage 21(4):531–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hujala T, Kurttila M, Karppinen H (2013) Customer segments among family forest owners: combining ownership objectives and decision-making styles. Small Scale For 1–17. doi:10.1007/s11842-012-9251-1
  14. Ingold K, Zimmermann W (2010) How and why forest managers adapt to socio-economic changes: a case study analysis in Swiss forestry enterprises. For Policy Econ 13(1):97–103Google Scholar
  15. Karppinen H, Hänninen H, Ripatti P (2002) Finnish forest owner 2000. Finnish Forest research Institute, Research papers 852Google Scholar
  16. Kasanen M (2011) Private forest owners’ management choices in twenty-first century Finland. University of Oulu, Faculty of Humanities, Cultural Antropology. Acta Univ. Ouluensis, vol 8, p 101Google Scholar
  17. Kim W, Mauborgne R (1999) Strategy, value innovation and the knowledge economy. Sloan Manage Rev 40(3):41–54Google Scholar
  18. Kubeczko K, Rametsteiner E, Weiss G (2006) The role of sectoral and regional innovation systems in supporting innovations in forestry. For Policy Econ 8:704–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuusisto J (2005) Innovation and knowledge-intensive service activities. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  20. Leppänen J (2010) Finnish family forest owner 2010 survey. Scandinavian Forest Economics No. 43. Proceedings of the Biennial meeting of the Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics. (referred 18.6.2012)
  21. Lönnstedt L (2012) Small-scale forest owners responsibilities: results from a Swedish case study. Small Scale For 11(3):407–416Google Scholar
  22. Mattila O (2010) Forestry services for Finnish private forest owners—service offerings, service organizations and the markets. Master’s thesis, University of HelsinkiGoogle Scholar
  23. Maxwell JA (1996) Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. SAGE Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Miles I (2005) Knowledge intensive business services: prospects and policies. Foresight 7:39–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Penrose E (1995) The theory of the growth of the firm, 3rd edn (reprint 1959) Oxford University Press, Oxford, 272 pGoogle Scholar
  26. Rieppo K (2010) Seeds of growth for small enterprises in forestry and wood-processing industries. TTS publications 406, NurmijärviGoogle Scholar
  27. Saaranen-Kauppinen A, Puusniekka A (2006) KvaliMOTV—menetelmäopetuksen tietovaranto, pdf-verkkojulkaisu. Tampere: Yhteiskuntatieteellinen tietoarkisto (referred: 28.10.2011)
  28. Schumpeter J (1934) The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital, credit; interest, and the business cycle. Harvard Economic studies volume XLVI. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Sinkkonen E, Tervo M, Mäkinen P, Korhonen-Sande S (2008) Liiketoimintamallien resurssiperustainen kilpailu metsäpalveluiden markkinoilla. University of Helsinki, Department of Forest Economics, Research papers 52 (in Finnish)Google Scholar
  30. Toivonen M, Tuominen T, Brax S (2007) Innovation process interlinked with the process of service delivery—a management challenge in KIBS. Economies et Sociétés 3:355–384Google Scholar
  31. Vargo S, Lusch R (2004) Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J Mark 68(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vargo S, Lusch R (2006) Service dominant logic—what it is, what it is not, what it might be. In: Lusch RF, Vargo SL (eds) The service-dominant logic of marketing: dialog, debate, and directions. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, pp 43–56Google Scholar
  33. Vargo S, Lusch R (2008) Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. J Acad Mark Sci 36:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Von Hippel E (2005) Democratizing Innovation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, p 63. Available: (referred 28.10.2011)
  35. Weiss G, Pettenella D, Ollongqvist P, Slee B (2011) Innovation in forestry—territorial and value chain relationships. CABI Publishing, United KingdomCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Steve Harrison, John Herbohn 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Mattila
    • 1
  • A. Toppinen
    • 1
  • M. Tervo
    • 1
  • S. Berghäll
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations