Re-imagining the Forest: Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Development for Finnish Cellulosic Materials

  • Ainomaija Haarla
  • Henri Hakala
  • Greg O’SheaEmail author
Part of the Applying Quality of Life Research book series (BEPR)


This case narrates the story of the creation of a Finnish Cellulose Entrepreneurial Ecosystem and its emergence through a series of community-based phase transitions during the years 2013–2017.

The case is explained by participants in the process who conducted and took part in a combination of more than 100 interviews and meetings. In the case, we explain the transition through phases of community: from a community of dreams through a community of inquiry towards a community of commerce, as the ecosystem emerges. The phases and transitions are characterised and driven by actors playing critical roles. These roles are identified in the phases along with the key processes that the actors lead and participate in.

The implications of the case are that entrepreneurial ecosystems can be created and driven through a bottom-up, community-based approach, driven by forms of public finance, as opposed to the creation of a hub-centred, more top-down model of development, and further that an understanding of roles and microprocesses can contribute to the building, organising and coordinating of ecosystem development.


Entrepreneurial ecosystem Communities Actor roles Phase transitions 


  1. Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84(4), 98.Google Scholar
  2. Adomavicius, G., Bockstedt, J., Gupta, A., & Kauffman, R. J. (2006). Understanding patterns of technology evolution: An ecosystem perspective. In System Sciences, 2006. HICSS’06. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (Vol. 8, pp. 189a–189a). IEEE.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, T. J. (1970). Communication networks in R & D laboratories. R&D Management, 1(1), 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of technology: Technology transfer and the dissemination of technological information within the R and D organization. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Anggraeni, E., Den Hartigh, E., & Zegveld, M. (2007, October). Business ecosystem as a perspective for studying the relations between firms and their business networks. In ECCON 2007 Annual meeting.Google Scholar
  6. Anon. (2015). Finland, a land of solutions. Strategic Programme of Prime Minister Juha Sipilä’s Government. [Pdf] Prime Minister’s Office. Available at: Accessed 10 Apr 2016.
  7. Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillovers and new firm location. Research Policy, 34(7), 1113–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Autio, E., & Thomas, L. (2014). Innovation ecosystems. The Oxford handbook of innovation management, 204–288.Google Scholar
  9. Autio, E., Dahlander, L., & Frederiksen, L. (2013). Information exposure, opportunity evaluation, and entrepreneurial action: An investigation of an online user community. Academy of Management Journal, 56(5), 1348–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097–1108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2004). Clusters and knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28(1), 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beinhocker, E. D. (2007). The origin of wealth: The radical remaking of economics and what it means for business and society. Cambridge: Harvard business school Press.Google Scholar
  13. Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., & Mol, M. J. (2008). Management innovation. Academy of Management Review, 33(4), 825–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. New York: Oxford University Press on Demand.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, B. (2006). Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Damanpour, F., & Aravind, D. (2012). Managerial innovation: Conceptions, processes, and antecedents. Management and Organization Review, 8(2), 423–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Delmar, F., & Shane, S. (2004). Legitimating first: Organizing activities and the survival of new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3), 385–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Den Hartigh, E., & van Asseldonk, T. (2004). Business ecosystems: A research framework for investigating the relation between network structure, firm strategy, and the pattern of innovation diffusion. In ECCON 2004 Annual Meeting: Co-Jumping on a Trampoline, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  19. Dimov, D. (2007). Beyond the single-person, single-insight attribution in understanding entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(5), 713–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Donada, C., & Attias, D. (2015). Food for thought: Which organisation and ecosystem governance to boost radical innovation in the electromobility 2.0 industry? International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, 15(2), 105–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Kärkkäinen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5(4), 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fletcher, D. E. (2006). Entrepreneurial processes and the social construction of opportunity. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 18(5), 421–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gaglio, C. M., & Taub, R. P. (1992). Entrepreneurs and opportunity recognition. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 12, 136–147.Google Scholar
  24. Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. A. (2014). Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 417–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gemünden, H. G., Salomo, S., & Hölzle, K. (2007). Role models for radical innovations in times of open innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(4), 408–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hakala, H., Sirén, C., & Wincent, J. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation and international new entry: The moderating role of autonomy and structures in subsidiaries. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(S1), 90–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2006). A collective action model of institutional innovation. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 864–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hauschildt, J., & Schewe, G. (2000). Gatekeeper and process promotor: Key persons in agile and innovative organizations. International Journal of Agile Management Systems, 2(2), 96–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heikkinen, M. T., Mainela, T., Still, J., & Tähtinen, J. (2007). Roles for managing in mobile service development nets. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(7), 909–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82(3), 68–81.Google Scholar
  31. Isenberg, D. J. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 40–50.Google Scholar
  32. Järvinen, J., & Linnakangas, J. (2012). Firm capabilities in the Finnish forest cluster: Comparisons based on self-organizing map. Silva Fennica, 46(1), 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kerr, W. R., & Nanda, R. (2009). Democratizing entry: Banking deregulations, financing constraints, and entrepreneurship. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(1), 124–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Koenig, G. (2012). Business ecosystems revisited. Management, 15(2), 208–224.Google Scholar
  35. Kristiansen, S. T. (2014). Facilitating innovation in networks composed of non-mandated relations. International Journal of Action Research, 10(1), 34–53.Google Scholar
  36. Lee, S. M., Olson, D. L., & Trimi, S. (2012). Co-innovation: Convergenomics, collaboration, and co-creation for organizational values. Management Decision, 50(5), 817–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lester, R., & Piore, M. (2004). The missing dimension. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lichtenstein, B., & Kurjanowicz, B. (2010). Tangibility, momentum, and the emergence of The Republic of Tea. ENTER Journal, 1(1), 125–148.Google Scholar
  39. Lichtenstein, B. B., & Plowman, D. A. (2009). The leadership of emergence: A complex systems leadership theory of emergence at successive organizational levels. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(4), 617–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lichtenstein, B. B., Dooley, K. J., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2006). Measuring emergence in the dynamics of new venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 153–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lin, N., & Dufresne, A. (2014). Nanocellulose in biomedicine: Current status and future prospect. European Polymer Journal, 59, 302–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maniak, R., Midler, C., Lenfle, S., & Pellec-Dairon, M. L. (2014). Value management for exploration projects. Project Management Journal, 45(4), 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Markham, S. K., & Griffin, A. (1998). The breakfast of champions: Associations between champions and product development environments, practices and performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(5), 436–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Marti, I., Courpasson, D., & Barbosa, S. D. (2013). “Living in the fishbowl”. Generating an entrepreneurial culture in a local community in Argentina. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(1), 10–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McMullen, J. S., & Dimov, D. (2013). Time and the entrepreneurial journey: The problems and promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process. Journal of Management Studies, 50(8), 1481–1512.Google Scholar
  46. Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2003). Ten principles of complexity and enabling infrastructures. Complex systems and evolutionary perspectives on organisations: The application of complexity theory to organisations (pp. 23–50). New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  47. Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–83.Google Scholar
  48. Moore, J. F. (2006). Business ecosystems and the view from the firm. The Antitrust Bulletin, 51(1), 31–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nahi, T., & Halme, M. (2015). Co-creation as Sensemaking: Collaboration in inclusive business creation in low-income contexts. Academy of management proceedings (Vol. 2015, No. 1, p. 18544). New York: Academy of Management.Google Scholar
  50. Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2013). Entrepreneurship in innovation ecosystems: Entrepreneurs’ self-regulatory processes and their implications for new venture success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(5), 1071–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pardales, M. J., & Girod, M. (2006). Community of Inquiry: Its past and present future. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(3), 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Peltoniemi, M. (2006). Preliminary theoretical framework for the study of business ecosystems. Emergence-Mahwah-Lawrence Erlbaum, 8(1), 10.Google Scholar
  53. Peltoniemi, M. (2013). Mechanisms of capability evolution in the Finnish forest industry cluster. Journal of Forest Economics, 19(2), 190–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Peltoniemi, M., & Vuori, E. (2004, September). Business ecosystem as the new approach to complex adaptive business environments. In Proceedings of eBusiness research forum (Vol. 18, pp. 267–281).
  55. Pratt, M. G. (2009). From the editors: For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2013). Do institutions matter for regional development? Regional Studies, 47(7), 1034–1047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.Google Scholar
  58. Shepherd, D. A. (2015). Party on! A call for entrepreneurship research that is more interactive, activity based, cognitively hot, compassionate, and prosocial. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(4), 489–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sirén, C., Hakala, H., Wincent, J., & Grichnik, D. (2017). Breaking the routines: Entrepreneurial orientation, strategic learning, firm size, and age. Long Range Planning, 50(2), 145–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sitra. (2016). Leading the cycle – Finnish road map to a circular economy 2016–2025, Sitra Studies 121, ISBN 978-951-563-978-3 (PDF)
  61. Spigel, B. (2015). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41, 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Spilling, O. R. (1996). Regional variation of new firm formation: The Norwegian case. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 8(3), 217–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Steyaert, C. (2007). ‘Entrepreneuring’as a conceptual attractor? A review of process theories in 20 years of entrepreneurship studies. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 19(6), 453–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Storper, M., & Venables, A. J. (2004). Buzz: Face-to-face contact and the urban economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 4(4), 351–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Swedberg, R. (2009). Schumpeter’s full model of entrepreneurship. In R. Ziegler (Ed.), An introduction to social entrepreneurship: Voices, preconditions, contexts (pp. 77–106). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  67. Thomas, L., & Autio, E. (2012). Modeling the ecosystem: a meta-synthesis of ecosystem and related literatures. In DRUID 2012 Conference, Copenhagen (Denmark).Google Scholar
  68. Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tushman, M. L. (1977). Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 587–605.Google Scholar
  70. Valdez, J. (1988). The entrepreneurial ecosystem: Toward a theory of new firm formation. Working Paper. Small Business Institute.Google Scholar
  71. Van de Ven, A. H., & Engleman, R. M. (2004). Event-and outcome-driven explanations of entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3), 343–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Venkataraman, S., Sarasvathy, S. D., Dew, N., & Forster, W. R. (2012). Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: Whither the promise? Moving forward with entrepreneurship as a science of the artificial. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 21–33.Google Scholar
  73. Vesalainen, J., & Hakala, H. (2014). Strategic capability architecture: The role of network capability. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(6), 938–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. von Weymarn, N. (2015). Forest-based business ecosystems: Case Äänekoski bioproduct mill. [Pdf] Metsä Group Oyj. Available at: Accessed 26 Jan 2016.
  75. Waters, T. (2016). Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft societies. In Blackwell, G. R. (Ed.), Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology (2nd ed.). New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  76. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  77. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zacharakis, A. L., Shepherd, D. A., & Coombs, J. E. (2003). The development of venture-capital-backed internet companies: An ecosystem perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 217–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aalto University School of Chemical EngineeringEspooFinland
  2. 2.School of Business and ManagementLappeenranta University of TechnologyLappeenrantaFinland
  3. 3.Aalto University School of BusinessHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations