Sustainability as a Driver in ForestryRelated Services

Part of the World Forests book series (WFSE, volume 24)


Rising environmental consciousness has shifted the focus of small-scale forestry away from productive functions towards more diversified ownership objectives. From transition management perspective, we analyze the role of private sector voluntary sustainability initiatives as a system driver in forestry, and review research on the role of sustainability in forestry-related service markets. The focus is on the view of small-scale service-oriented businesses, and by drawing experiences from the Nordic context. Based on the literature review, sustainability is gaining deeper level interest and active engagement among small scale forest owners due to, perhaps first and foremost, increasing awareness on global sustainability challenges, and the role of forests in these. A challenge remains in diffusion of the sustainability-related niche innovations. In addition, the strong environmental-economic emphasis in sustainability may lead to the undervaluing the potential of some socially driven forest ecosystem services. The effectiveness of new methods, such as framing as a tool to nudge family owners towards more sustainable forestry practices, provides avenues for future experimentation and research.


Framing MLP Nudging Service development Sustainability transition 


  1. Aguilar, F. X., & Vlosky, R. P. (2007). Consumer willingness to pay price premiums for environmentally certified wood products in the U.S. Forest Policy and Economics, 9(8), 1100–1112.Google Scholar
  2. Anttila, M., Ripatti, P., & Jouhiaho, A. (2008). Puunmyyntitulot Yksityismetsänomistajan taloudessa. TTS tutkimuksen raportteja ja oppaita 39. Nurmijärvi. (In Finnish).Google Scholar
  3. Asikainen, A., Hujala, T., & Kurttila, M. (2014). Maanomistajien näkemyksiä metsänkäsittelyn vaihtoehdoista ja metsäammattilaisten palvelunkehittämisnäkökulmia – Metsänhoitoyhdistys Päijät-Hämeen tapaustutkimus. Metsätieteen aikakauskirja, 3(2014), 149–162. (In Finnish.).Google Scholar
  4. Auvinen, H., Ruutu, S., Tuominen, A., Ahlqvist, T., & Oksanen, J. (2015). Process supporting strategic decision-making in systemic transitions. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 94, 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baum, J., Cumming, G. S., & de Vos, A. (2017). Understanding spatial variation in the drivers of nature-based tourism and their influence on the sustainability of private land conservation. Ecological Economics, 140, 225–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett, S. J. (2012). Using past transitions to inform scenarios for the future of renewable raw materials in the UK. Energy Policy, 50, 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berghäll, S. (2018). Service marketing phenomena in the context of private forest owners—A service dominant logic perspective on scholarly literature. Current Forestry Reports, 4, 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berkhout, F., Smith, A., & Sterling, A. (2005). Socio-technological regimes and transition contexts. In B. Elzen, F. Geels, & K. Green (Eds.), System innovation and the transition to sustainability: Theory, evidence and policy. Camberley: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Bioeconomy. (2014). The Finnish bioeconomy strategy. Retrieved July 7, 2019, from
  10. Bosman, R., & Rotmans, J. (2016). Transition governance towards a bioeconomy: A comparison of Finland and The Netherlands. Sustainability, 8(10), 1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen, J., Tinkina, A., Kozak, R., Innes, J., Duinker, J. P., & Larson, B. (2011). The efficacy of forest certification: Perceptions of Canadian forest products retailers. Forestry Chronicle, 87(5), 636–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. de Bruin, J. O., Kok, K., & Hoogstra-Klein, M. A. (2017). Exploring the potential of combining participative backcasting and exploratory scenarios for robust strategies: Insights from the Dutch forest sector. Forest Policy and Economics, 85(2), 269–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Vries, G. (2017). How positive framing may fuel opposition to low-carbon technologies: The boomerang model. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36, 28–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Vries, G., Terwel, B. W., & Ellemers, N. (2014). Spare the details, share the relevance: The dilution effect in communications about carbon dioxide capture and storage. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 116–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Vries, G., Terwel, B. W., Ellemers, N., & Daamen, D. D. L. (2015). Sustainability or profitability? How communicated motives for environmental policy affect public perceptions of corporate greenwashing. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22, 142–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. de Vries, G., Terwel, B. W., & Ellemers, N. (2016). Perceptions of manipulation and judgments of illegitimacy: Pitfalls in the use of emphasis framing when communicating about CO2 capture and storage. Environmental Communication, 10, 206–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feliciano, D., Bouriaud, L., Brahic, E., Deuffic, P., Dobsinska, Z., Jarsky, V., et al. (2017). Understanding private forest owners’ conceptualisation of forest management: Evidence from a survey in seven European countries. Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 162–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Finnish Forest Association. (2017). Forestry. Retrieved July 7, 2019, from
  20. Forest Products Annual Market Review. (2017). Retrieved July 7, 2019, from
  21. Gabzdylova, B., Raffensperger, J. F., & Castka, P. (2009). Sustainability in the New Zealand wine industry: Drivers, stakeholders and practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(11), 992–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Geels, F. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31, 1257–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Geels, F. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 24–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Geels, F., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Genus, A., & Coles, A.-M. (2008). Rethinking the multi-level perspective of technological transitions. Research Policy, 37, 1436–1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Griggs, D., Stafford-Smith, M., Gaffney, O., Rocstrom, J., Öhman, M. C., Shyamsundar, P., et al. (2013). Policy: Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature, 495, 305–307.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Grin, J., Rotmans, J., & Schot, J. (2010). Transitions to sustainable development: New directions in the study of long term transformative change. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hartikainen, H., & Hetemäki, L. (2008). Hollannin malli (transition management) ja sen soveltuvuus metsien käytön politiikkaan. Metla Discussion papers 101. (In Finnish).Google Scholar
  29. Häyrinen, L., Mattila, O., Berghäll, S., & Toppinen, A. (2015). Forest ownership profiles as predictors of customer value: Evidence from Finland. Small-Scale Forestry, 14(1), 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Häyrinen, L., Mattila, O., Berghäll, S., & Toppinen, A. (2016). Lifestyle of health and sustainability of forest owners as an indicator of multiple use of forests. Forest Policy and Economics, 67, 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hetemäki, L., Hanewinkel, M., Muys, B., Ollikainen, M., Palahí, & M., Trasobares, A. (2017). Leading the way to a European circular bioeconomy strategy. From Science to Policy 5. Joensuu: European Forest Institute.Google Scholar
  32. Hoppe, T., Kuokkanen, A., Mikkilä, M., Kahiluoto, H., Kuisma, M., & Linnanen, L. (2016). System merits or failures? Policies for transition to sustainable P and N systems in the Netherlands and Finland. Sustainability, 8(5), 463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jacobson, M. G., Straka, T. J., Greene, J. L., Kilgore, M. A., & Daniels, S. E. (2009). Financial incentive programs’ influence in promoting sustainable forestry in the northern region. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry, 26(2), 61–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Knüppe, K., & Meissner, R. (2016). Drivers and barriers towards sustainable water and land management in the Olifants-Doorn Water Management Area, South Africa. Environmental Development, 20, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kohtakangas, K. (2017). Pirkanmaalaisten metsänomistajien FSC-sertifioinnin tuntemus ja sertifiointihalukkuuteen vaikuttavia tekijöitä. Bachelor’s thesis, Tampere University of Applied Sciences. (In Finnish).Google Scholar
  36. Lähtinen, K., Toppinen, A., Mikkilä, M., Toivio, M., & Suur-Uski, O. (2016). Corporate responsibility reporting in promoting social license to operate in the forestry and sawmilling industries. Forestry, 89, 525–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Liubachyna, A., Secco, L., & Pettenella, D. (2017). Reporting practices of State Forest Enterprises in Europe. Forest Policy and Economics, 78, 162–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lokhorst, A. M., Van Dijk, J., Staats, H., Van Dijk, E., & De Snoo, G. (2010). Using tailored information and public commitment to improve the environmental quality of farm lands: An example from the Netherlands. Human Ecology, 38(1), 113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable development: A prescriptive, complexity‐based governance framework. Governance, 23(19), 161–183.Google Scholar
  40. Lönnstedt, L. (2012). Small-scale forest owners’ responsibilities: Results from a Swedish case study. Small-Scale Forestry, 11, 407–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Luke. (2017). Retrieved October 12, 2017, from (In Finnish).
  42. Markard, J., & Truffer, B. (2008). Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated framework. Research Policy, 37, 596–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41(6), 955–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marshall, G., Yashwant, S., Shaw, C., & Clarke, J. (2017). Communicating climate change in India: A Global Narratives project. Oxford: Climate Outreach.Google Scholar
  45. Matthies, B., D’Amato, D., Berghäll, S., Ekholm, T., Hoen, H., Holopainen, J., et al. (2016a). An Ecosystem Service-dominant Logic?—Integrating the ecosystem service approach within service science. Journal of Cleaner Production, 124, 51–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Matthies, B. D., Kalliokoski, T., Eyvindson, K., Honkela, N., Hukkinen, J., Kuusinen, N., et al. (2016b). Nudging service providers and assessing service trade-offs to reduce the social inefficiencies of payments for ecosystem services schemes. Environmental Science & Policy, 55, 228–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mattila, O. (2015). Towards service-dominant thinking in the Finnish forestry service market. Dissertationes Forestales 198.Google Scholar
  48. Mattila, O., & Roos, A. (2014). Service logic of providers in the forestry services sector: Evidence from Finland and Sweden. Forest Policy and Economics, 43, 10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Maatilan Pellervo. (2006). Sertifiointi tuo lisäarvoa metsälle.
  50. Mikkilä, M. (2006). The many faces of responsibility: Acceptability of the global pulp and paper industry in various societies. Dissertationes Forestales 25.Google Scholar
  51. Mikkilä, M., Panapanaan, V., Linnanen, L. (2015), Corporate responsibility in Finland—From local movements to global responsibility. In S. O. Idowu, R. Schmidpeter, & M. S. Fifka (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility in Europe (pp. 209–228). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. (2015). Suomen kansallinen metsäohjelma 2025.Google Scholar
  53. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. (2017). Retrieved October 11, 2017, from
  54. Natural Resources Institute Finland. (2018). Legal framework and legislation. Retrieved July 7, 2019, from
  55. Näyhä, A., Pelli, P., & Hetemäki, L. (2015). Services in the forest-based sector—Unexplored futures. Foresight, 17(4), 378–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51, 12–23.Google Scholar
  57. Official Statistics of Finland (OSF): Ownership of forest land [web publication], Natural Resources Institute Finland. Retrieved October 11, 2017, from
  58. Owari, T., Juslin, H., Rummukainen, A., & Yoshimura, T. (2006). Strategies, functions and benefits of forest certification in wood products marketing: Perspectives of Finnish suppliers. Forest Policy and Economics, 9(4), 380–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pelli, P. (2018). Services and industrial development: Analysis of industrial policy, trends and issues for the forest-based sector. Journal of Forest Economics, 31, 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Primmer, E., Kangas, H.-L., Liski, J., Rekola, A., Seppälä, J., Kettunen, M., et al. (2016). Sustainable forestry in Finland: ENVI delegation in May 2016. European Parliament, Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy. Retrieved July 7, 2019, from
  61. Rotmans, J., Kemp, R. & van Asselt, M. (2001). More evolution than revolution: Transition management in public policy. Foresight, 3, 15–31Google Scholar
  62. Schusser, C., Krott, M., Yufanyi Movuh, M. C., Logmani, J., Devkota, R. R., Maryudi, A., et al. (2015). Powerful stakeholders as drivers of community forestry—Results of an international study. Forest Policy and Economics, 58, 92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Smith, A., Voβ, J.-P., & Grin, J. (2010). Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Research Policy, 9(4), 435–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stora Enso. (2017). Retrieved October 11, 2017, from
  65. TEM. (2014). The Finnish bioeconomy strategy. Ministry of employment and the economy.Google Scholar
  66. Toppinen, A., Wan, M., & Lähtinen, K. (2013). Strategic orientations in global forest industry. In E. Hansen, et al. (Eds.), Global forest industry: Changes. Taylor & Francis Ltd.: Practices and Prospects.Google Scholar
  67. Toppinen, A., Cubbage, F., & Moore, S. (2014). Economics of forest certification and corporate social responsibility. In S. Kant & J. Alavapati (Eds.), Handbook of forest resource economics (pp. 444–458). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  68. Toppinen, A., Lähtinen, K., & Holopainen, J. (2016). On corporate responsibility. In R. Panwar, E. Hansen, & R. Kozak (Eds.), Forests, business and sustainability (pp. 70–90). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  69. Tuppura, A., Toppinen, A., & Puumalainen, K. (2016). Forest certification and ISO14001: Current state and motivation in forest companies. Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(5), 353–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Umaerus, P., Nordin, M., & Lidestav, G. (2019). Do female forest owners think and act “greener”? Forest Policy and Economics, 99, 52–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Winkel, G. (Ed.). (2017). Towards a sustainable European forest-based bioeconomy – assessment and the way forward. What Science Can Tell Us 8. Joensuu: European Forest Institute. Available:

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Lappeenranta-Lahti University of TechnologyLappeenrantaFinland
  3. 3.Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations