Organizational Models in European Forestry: An Attempt of Conceptualization and Categorization
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Approaches, Materials, and Methods
2.1. Guiding Approaches, Framing, and Concepts
2.1.1. Economy, Law, and Business Management
2.1.2. Social Sciences
2.1.3. Policy Sciences
2.1.4. Framing Variables
2.2. Research Plan, Materials, and Methods
2.2.1. Review of the Literature
2.2.2. Content Analysis
3. Results
3.1. State Forest Management Organizations
3.2. Private Forest Owners’ Organizations
3.3. Commonly Managed Forests
3.3.1. Community Forests
3.3.2. Community Forestry and Community-Based Forest Enterprises
3.4. Social Forest Enterprises
3.5. Forestry Enterprises
3.6. Other Organizations
4. Discussion
- The legal nature of actors, with two relevant sub-dimensions:
- ○
- The distinction between public, private, and third sector (private, but oriented to public utility);
- ○
- The distinction between legally recognized ‘formal’ organizations and informal organizations which have no legal recognition (e.g., households, certification groups).
- The relationship with forest owners, which may be internal to the organization (members) or external (partner/client/contractor);
- The purpose, between the profit/not-for-profit dichotomy.
4.1. Actors
4.2. Values and Discourses
4.3. Rules
4.4. Power and Resources
4.5. Other Key Variables
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Weiss, G.; Lawrence, A.; Hujala, T.; Lidestav, G.; Nichiforel, L.; Nybakk, E.; Quiroga, S.; Sarvašová, Z.; Suarez, C.; Živojinović, I. Forest ownership changes in Europe: State of knowledge and conceptual foundations. For. Policy Econ. 2019, 99, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Živojinović, I.; Weiss, G.; Lidestav, G.; Feliciano, D.; Hujala, T.; Dobšinská, Z.; Lawrence, A.; Nybakk, E.; Quiroga, S.; Schrami, U. (Eds.) Forest Land Ownership Change in Europe; COST Action FP1201 FACESMAP Country Reports; European Forest Institute Central-East and South-East European Regional Office (EFICEEC-EFISEE): Vienna, Austria; University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences: Vienna, Austria, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Sonnhoff, M.; Selter, A.; Kleinschmit, D.; Schraml, U. Forest Management Cooperatives and Their Development under Uncertain Conditions: A Comprehensive Analysis Using an Actor-Centered Institutionalism Approach. Small Scale For. 2021, 20, 305–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kittredge, D.B. The cooperation of private forest owners on scales larger than one individual property: International examples and potential application in the United States. For. Policy Econ. 2005, 7, 671–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Referowska-Chodak, E. The Organization of Nature Conservation in State-Owned Forests in Poland and Expectations of Polish Stakeholders. Forests 2020, 11, 796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanišić, M.; Lovrić, M.; Nedeljković, J.; Nonić, D.; Malovrh, P. Climate Change Governance in Forestry and Nature Conservation in Selected Forest Regions in Serbia: Stakeholders Classification and Collaboration. Forests 2021, 12, 709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ludvig, A.; Zivojinovic, I.; Hujala, T. Social Innovation as a Prospect for the Forest Bioeconomy: Selected Examples from Europe. Forests 2019, 10, 878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, E. Responding to the Bioeconomy: Business Model Innovation in the Forest Sector. In Environmental Impacts of Traditional and Innovative Forest-Based Bioproducts; Springer: Singapore, 2016; pp. 227–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kajanus, M.; Leban, V.; Glavonjić, P.; Krč, J.; Nedeljković, J.; Nonić, D.; Nybakk, E.; Posavec, S.; Riedl, M.; Teder, M.; et al. What can we learn from business models in the European forest sector: Exploring the key elements of new business model designs. For. Policy Econ. 2019, 99, 145–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ludvig, A.; Rogelja, T.; Asamer-Handler, M.; Weiss, G.; Wilding, M.; Zivojinovic, I. Governance of Social Innovation in Forestry. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dedeurwaerdere, T. Social Learning as a Basis for Cooperative Small-Scale Forest Management. Small Scale For. 2009, 8, 193–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nybakk, E.; Crespell, P.; Hansen, E.; Lunnan, A. Antecedents to forest owner innovativeness: An investigation of the non-timber forest products and services sector. For. Ecol. Manag. 2009, 257, 608–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weiss, G. Innovation in Forestry: New Values and Challenges for Traditional Sector. In Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship; Carayannis, E.G., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 964–971. [Google Scholar]
- Weiss, G.; Ludvig, A.; Živojinović, I. Four decades of innovation research in forestry and the forest-based industries—A systematic literature review. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 120, 102288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, E.; Nybakk, E.; Panwar, R. Innovation Insights from North American Forest Sector Research: A Literature Review. Forests 2014, 5, 1341–1355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buttoud, G.; Kouplevatskaya-Buttoud, I.; Slee, B.; Weiss, G. Barriers to institutional learning and innovations in the forest sector in Europe: Markets, policies and stakeholders. For. Policy Econ. 2011, 13, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawrence, A.; Gatto, P.; Bogataj, N.; Lidestav, G. Forests in common: Learning from diversity of community forest arrangements in Europe. AMBIO 2020, 50, 448–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kajanus, M.; Iire, A.; Eskelinen, T.; Heinonen, M.; Hansen, E. Business model design: New tools for business systems innovation. Scand. J. For. Res. 2014, 29, 603–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y. Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Alchian, A.; Demsetz, H. Production, Information Costs, and Economic Organization. Am. Econ. Rev. 1972, 62, 777–795. [Google Scholar]
- Jensen, M.C.; Meckling, W.H. Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J. Financ. Econ. 1976, 3, 305–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eccles, R.G.; Williamson, O.E. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. Adm. Sci. Q. 1987, 32, 602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansmann, H.; Kraakman, R. The Essential Role of Organizational Law. Yale Law J. 2000, 110, 387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shafer, S.M.; Smith, H.J.; Linder, J.C. The power of business models. Bus. Horizons 2005, 48, 199–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osterwalder, A.; Pigneur, Y.; Tucci, C.L. Clarifying Business Models: Origins, Present, and Future of the Concept. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2005, 16, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scott, W.R. Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, 5th ed.; Pearson Education: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Seidl, D.; Becker, K.H. (Eds.) Niklas Luhmann and Organization Studies; CBS Press: Copenhagen, Denmark; Liber: Malmö, Sweden, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Ahrne, G.; Brunsson, N. Organization Outside Organizations: The Abundance of Partial Organization in Social Life; Cambridge University Press: Camrbidge, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Ahrne, G.; Brunsson, N.; Seidl, D. Resurrecting organization by going beyond organizations. Eur. Manag. J. 2016, 34, 93–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ostrom, E. Understanding Institutional Diversity; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Helmke, G.; Levitsky, S.; Christiansen, T.; Neuhold, C. Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research Agenda. In International Handbook on Informal Governance; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA, 2012; Volume 2, pp. 85–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ludvig, A.; Wilding, M.; Thorogood, A.; Weiss, G. Social innovation in the Welsh Woodlands: Community based forestry as collective third-sector engagement. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 95, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miyagawa, T.; Olver, C.; Otsuka, N.; Kurose, T.; Abe, H. Lessons and achievements from the Mersey Forest by networking partnership for twenty years. Int. J. Geomate 2018, 15, 48–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powell, W.; DiMaggio, P.J. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Van Tatenhove, J.; Leroy, P. Environment and Participation in a context of Political Modernisation. Environ. Values 2003, 12, 155–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arts, B.; Leroy, P.; van Tatenhove, J. Political Modernisation and Policy Arrangements: A Framework for Understanding Environmental Policy Change. Public Organ. Rev. 2006, 6, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wiering, M.A.; Arts, B.J.M. Discursive Shifts in Dutch River Management: ‘Deep’ Institutional Change or Adaptation Strategy? Hydrobiologia 2006, 565, 327–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krott, M.; Bader, A.; Schusser, C.; Devkota, R.; Maryudi, A.; Giessen, L.; Aurenhammer, H. Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance. For. Policy Econ. 2014, 49, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juerges, N.; Arts, B.; Masiero, M.; Başkent, E.Z.; Borges, J.G.; Brodrechtova, Y.; Brukas, V.; Canadas, M.J.; Carvalho, P.O.; Corradini, G.; et al. Integrating ecosystem services in power analysis in forest governance: A comparison across nine European countries. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 121, 102317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, G.; Greenhalgh, T.; Westhorp, G.; Buckingham, J.; Pawson, R. RAMESES publication standards: Meta-narrative reviews. BMC Med. 2013, 11, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Snyder, H. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 104, 333–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int. J. Surg. 2021, 88, 105906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Britten, N.; Campbell, R.; Pope, C.; Donovan, J.; Morgan, M.; Pill, R. Using meta ethnography to synthesise qualitative research: A worked example. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 2002, 7, 209–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Noblit, G.; Hare, R. Meta-Ethnography; SAGE Publications Inc.: London, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Liubachyna, A.; Bubbico, A.; Secco, L.; Pettenella, D. Management Goals and Performance: Clustering State Forest Management Organizations in Europe with Multivariate Statistics. Forests 2017, 8, 504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pivoriūnas, A. Forms of Cooperation of Lithuanian Forest Owners: A Case Review. Balt. For. 2021, 26, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarvašová, Z.; Zivojinovic, I.; Weiss, G.; Dobšinská, Z.; Drăgoi, M.; Gál, J.; Jarský, V.; Mizaraite, D.; Põllumäe, P.; Šálka, J.; et al. Forest Owners Associations in the Central and Eastern European Region. Small Scale For. 2015, 14, 217–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bassi, I.; Carestiato, N. Common property organisations as actors in rural development: A case study of a mountain area in Italy. Int. J. Commons 2016, 10, 363–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawrence, A.; Molteno, S. Community Forest Governance: A Rapid Evidence Review; The Research Agency of the Forestry Commission: Farnham, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- MacQueen, D.J. Forest Connect: Reducing poverty and deforestation through support to community forest enterprises. Int. For. Rev. 2008, 10, 670–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, S.; Paterson, J.S.; Hujala, T. Sustaining Forest Ecosystem Services Through Social Enterprises: Motivations and Challenges from a Case Study in Scotland. Small Scale For. 2021, 20, 627–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rauch, P.; Gronalt, M. Evaluating organisational designs in the forestry wood supply chain to support Forest Owners’ Cooperations. Small Scale For. Econ. Manag. Policy 2005, 4, 53–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pezdevšek Malovrh, Š.; Kumer, P.; Glavonjić, P.; Nonić, D.; Nedeljković, J.; Kisin, B.; Avdibegović, M. Different organizational models of private forest owners as a possibility to increase wood mobilization in Slovenia and Serbia. Croat. J. For. Eng. 2017, 38, 127–140. [Google Scholar]
- Gatto, P.; Pettenella, D.; Secco, L. Payments for forest environmental services: Organisational models and related experiences in Italy. Iforest Biogeosciences For. 2009, 2, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Secco, L.; Pettenella, D.; Maso, D. ‘Net-System’ Models Versus Traditional Models in NWFP Marketing: The Case of Mushrooms. Small Scale For. 2009, 8, 349–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United Nations (UN); Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Who Owns Our Forests? Forest Ownership in the ECE Region; United Nations: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Von Detten, R.; Faber, F. Organizational decision-making by German state-owned forest companies concerning climate change adaptation measures. For. Policy Econ. 2013, 35, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teder, M.; Mizaraite, D.; Mizaras, S.; Nonic, D.; Nedeljkovic, J.; Sarvašová, Z.; Vilkriste, L.; Zalite, Z.; Weiss, G. Structural changes of state forest management organisations in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Serbia and Slovakia since 1990. Balt. For. 2015, 21, 326–339. [Google Scholar]
- Secco, L.; Favero, M.; Masiero, M.; Pettenella, D.M. Failures of political decentralization in promoting network governance in the forest sector: Observations from Italy. Land Use Policy 2017, 62, 79–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. State-Owned Enterprise Governance Reform: An Inventory of Recent Change; OECD: Paris, France, 2011; 56p. [Google Scholar]
- Milijic, V.; Rankovic, N.; Nonic, D.; Nedeljkovic, J. Organization of private forest sector in Timok forest area. Ann. For. Res. 2010, 53, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Mobilisation and Efficient Use of Wood and Wood Residues for Energy Generation; Working Group II on mobilisation and efficient use of wood and wood residues for energy generation; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2008.
- Sonnhoff, M.; Selter, A. Symbolic interaction and its influence on cooperation between private forest owners. For. Policy Econ. 2021, 130, 102535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kronholm, T.; Larsson, I.; Erlandsson, E. Characterization of forestry contractors’ business models and profitability in Northern Sweden. Scand. J. For. Res. 2021, 36, 491–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kittredge, D.B. Private forestland owners in Sweden: Large-scale cooperation in action. J. For. 2003, 101, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kronholm, T. How are Swedish Forest Owners’ Associations Adapting to the Needs of Current and Future Members and Their Organizations? Small Scale For. 2016, 15, 413–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Størdal, S. Efficient timber pricing and purchasing behavior in forest owners’ associations. J. For. Econ. 2004, 10, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tuominen, P.; Uski, T.; Jussila, I.; Kotonen, U. Organization types and corporate social responsibility reporting in Finnish forest industry. Soc. Responsib. J. 2008, 4, 474–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansmann, R.; Kilchling, P.; Seeland, K. The Effects of Regional Forest Owner Organizations on Forest Management in the Swiss Canton of Lucerne. Small Scale For. 2016, 15, 159–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Põllumäe, P.; Lilleleht, A.; Korjus, H. Institutional barriers in forest owners’ cooperation: The case of Estonia. For. Policy Econ. 2016, 65, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weiss, G.; Lawrence, A.; Lidestav, G.; Feliciano, D.; Hujala, T.; Sarvašová, Z.; Dobšinská, Z.; Živojinović, I. Research trends: Forest ownership in multiple perspectives. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 99, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nonic, D.; Bliss, J.C.; Milijic, V.; Petrovic, N.; Avdibegovic, M.; Mataruga, M. Challenges of Organizing Private Forest Owners in Serbia. Small Scale For. 2011, 10, 435–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Põllumäe, P.; Lilleleht, A.; Korjus, H. Reflections of active forest owners to the public-private forestry support system in Estonia. For. Stud. 2019, 71, 100–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawrence, A.; Deuffic, P.; Hujala, T.; Nichiforel, L.; Feliciano, D.; Jodlowski, K.; Lind, T.; Marchal, D.; Talkkari, A.; Teder, M.; et al. Extension, advice and knowledge systems for private forestry: Understanding diversity and change across Europe. Land Use Policy 2020, 94, 104522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CNPF. Les Chiffres Clés de la Forêt Privée Française; CNPF: Paris, France, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Bissonnette, J.-F.; Blouin, D.; Dupras, J.; Chion, C.; Bouthillier, L. Comparing polycentric configuration for adaptive governance within community forests: Case studies in Eastern North America. Int. J. Commons 2018, 12, 352–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neumeier, S. Why do Social Innovations in Rural Development Matter and Should They be Considered More Seriously in Rural Development Research?—Proposal for a Stronger Focus on Social Innovations in Rural Development Research. Sociol. Rural. 2011, 52, 48–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlsson, L. Still going strong, community forests in Sweden. For. Int. J. For. Res. 1999, 72, 11–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butler, M.; Current, D. Evolution of Community-Based Enterprise Governance Over Time: Lessons Learned from the Maya Biosphere Reserve. Small Scale For. 2021, 21, 29–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agrawal, A.; Ostrom, E. Collective Action, Property Rights, and Decentralization in Resource Use in India and Nepal. Politics Soc. 2001, 29, 485–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siegner, M.; Panwar, R.; Kozak, R. Community forest enterprises and social enterprises: The confluence of two streams of literatures for sustainable natural resource management. Soc. Enterp. J. 2021, 17, 584–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agrawal, A.; Brown, D.G.; Rao, G.; Riolo, R.; Robinson, D.T.; Bommarito, M. Interactions between organizations and networks in common-pool resource governance. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 25, 138–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vega, D.C.; Keenan, R.J. Transaction cost theory of the firm and community forestry enterprises. For. Policy Econ. 2014, 42, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antinori, C.; Bray, D.B. Community forest enterprises as entrepreneurial Firms: Economic and institutional perspectives from Mexico. World Dev. 2005, 33, 1529–1543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macqueen, D. Enabling Conditions for Successful Community Forest Enterprises. Small Scale For. 2013, 12, 145–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawrence, A.; Wong, J.L.; Molteno, S. Fostering social enterprise in woodlands: Challenges for partnerships supporting social innovation. For. Policy Econ. 2020, 118, 102221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ambrose-Oji, B.; Lawrence, A.; Stewart, A. Community based forest enterprises in Britain: Two organising typologies. For. Policy Econ. 2015, 58, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erbaugh, J.T.; Pradhan, N.; Adams, J.; Oldekop, J.A.; Agrawal, A.; Brockington, D.; Pritchard, R.; Chhatre, A. Global forest restoration and the importance of prioritizing local communities. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 4, 1472–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Polman, A.N.; Slee, B.; Kluvánková, T.; Dijkshoorn, M.; Nijnik, M.; Gezik, V.; Soma, K. Social Innovation in Marginalised Rural Areas Call: H2020-ISIB-2015-2, Innovative, Sustainable and Inclusive Bioeconomy Classification of Social Innovations for Marginalized Rural Areas; No. 677622 SIMRA; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2017.
- Ambrušová, L.; Marttila, J. Comparison of outsourced operations in wood procurement in Finland and Slovakia. Work. Pap. Finn. Res. Inst. 2012, 9, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
- Eriksson, M.; LeBel, L.; Lindroos, O. Management of outsourced forest harvesting operations for better customer-contractor alignment. For. Policy Econ. 2015, 53, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jylhä, P.; Rikkonen, P.; Hamunen, K. Size matters—An analysis of business models and the financial performance of Finnish wood-harvesting companies. Silva Fenn. 2020, 54, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drolet, S.; LeBel, L. Forest harvesting entrepreneurs, perception of their business status and its influence on performance evaluation. For. Policy Econ. 2010, 12, 287–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Šporčić, M.; Landekić, M.; Papa, I.; Lepoglavec, K.; Nevečerel, H.; Seletković, A.; Bakarić, M. Current Status and Perspectives of Forestry Entrepreneurship in Croatia. South East Eur. For. 2017, 8, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ungerböck, E.; Sekot, W.; Toscani, P. Looking beyond timber: Empirical evidence for the diversification of forest enterprises and the profitability of auxiliary activities in Austria. For. Policy Econ. 2015, 54, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blanc, S.; Brun, F.; Mosso, A. Performance Analysis of logging enterprises operating in the western italian alps. Qual. Access Success 2019, 20, 40–51. [Google Scholar]
- Sikora, A.T.; Nybakk, E.; Panwar, R. The effect of entrepreneurial and learning orientations on financial performance in a transition economy: Evidence from forest contracting firms in southern Poland. Scand. J. For. Res. 2016, 31, 119–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lorincová, S.; Stachová, K.; Stacho, Z.; Joniaková, Z.; Blštáková, J.; Lipoldová, M.; Hitka, M. Defining the differences in corporate culture in wood-processing and forest enterprises. Bioresources 2020, 15, 3320–3343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hicks, E.; Maddocks, J.; Robb, A.; Webb, T. Co-operative Accountability and Identity: An Examination of Reporting Practices of Nova Scotia Co-operatives. J. Coop. Stud. 2007, 40, 4–16. [Google Scholar]
- Trigkas, M.; Anastopoulos, C.; Papadopoulos, I.; Lazaridou, D. Business model for developing strategies of forest cooperatives. Evidence from an emerging business environment in Greece. J. Sustain. For. 2020, 39, 259–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hull, R.B.; Ashton, S. Forest cooperatives revisited. J. For. 2008, 106, 100–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Badini, O.S.; Hajjar, R.; Kozak, R. Critical success factors for small and medium forest enterprises: A review. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 94, 35–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindstad, B.H. ‘What’s in it for me?’—Contrasting environmental organisations and forest owner participation as policies evolve. For. Policy Econ. 2018, 89, 80–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juerges, N.; Newig, J. How interest groups adapt to the changing forest governance landscape in the EU: A case study from Germany. For. Policy Econ. 2015, 50, 228–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cherchyk, L.; Korchynska, L.; Babenko, V. Using model forests as a form of balanced forestry in Ukraine. For. Stud. 2019, 71, 69–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Živojinović, I.; Weiss, G.; Wilding, M.; Wong, J.; Ludvig, A. Experiencing forest products—An innovation trend by rural entrepreneurs. Land Use Policy 2020, 94, 104506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williamson, O.E. Examining economic organization through the lens of contract. Ind. Corp. Chang. 2003, 12, 917–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewin, A.Y.; Long, C.P.; Carroll, T.N. The Coevolution of New Organizational Forms. Organ. Sci. 1999, 10, 535–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Partelow, S. A review of the social-ecological systems framework: Applications, methods, modifications, and challenges. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Organizational Models as Defined by Authors in the 66 Articles | Aggregative Name Proposed | Description |
---|---|---|
State forest management organizations | State forest management organizations (SFMOs) | A state-owned forest company, enterprise, or agency that performs sustainable forest management and wood production as its major concern; they meet both social and financial objectives, while protecting forests and biodiversity [5,45]. |
State-owned enterprises | ||
State forest organizations | ||
Forest owners’ associations | Private forest owners’ organizations (PFOOs) | Private forest owners constitute members’ controlled organizations with the aim to represent the interests of the members and/or providing forest management services to optimize management costs and overcome issues due to land fragmentation [46,47]. |
Forest owners’ organization | ||
Forest owners’ cooperation | ||
Organization of forest owners | ||
Forest groups | ||
Common property organization | Community forests (CFs) | Organizations operating forest management based on common ownership rights, management, and use of forests [48]. |
Community forests | ||
“Consorzi vicinali” | ||
Community forestry | Community forestry and Community-based forest enterprises (CBFEs) | In community forestry, communities that do not own forests have some involvement in forest management, decision making, and/or governance and gain some benefit from them [49]. CBFEs are companies organized by community members to actively provide forest products and services, with the goal of producing social returns and/or managing assets that benefit those communities [50]. |
Community forestry enterprises | ||
Community-based forest enterprises | ||
Social enterprises | Social forest enterprises (SFEs) | SFEs are companies not acting for profit but are established for social or/and environmental purposes [51]. They can be established within a community (forest), but do not necessarily involve forest owners as members. |
Not-for-profit enterprises (Rural) Charities | ||
Third-sector organizations | ||
Forest harvesting entrepreneurs | Forest enterprises (FEs) | Organizations whose business is based upon forest operations, contracted with public or private forest owners (our elaboration), normally not holding forest planning responsibilities and not owning forest land. |
Forestry contractors | ||
Forest enterprises | ||
Forest cooperatives | ||
Environmental organizations ENGOs Certification schemes Certification groups Model forests | Others | Several more types of organizations were mentioned within the 66 articles, but not described with sufficient data to create a category and carry out the characterization analysis. Results are reported in Section 3.6 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Loreggian, F.; Secco, L.; Pettenella, D. Organizational Models in European Forestry: An Attempt of Conceptualization and Categorization. Forests 2023, 14, 905. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14050905
Loreggian F, Secco L, Pettenella D. Organizational Models in European Forestry: An Attempt of Conceptualization and Categorization. Forests. 2023; 14(5):905. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14050905
Chicago/Turabian StyleLoreggian, Francesco, Laura Secco, and Davide Pettenella. 2023. "Organizational Models in European Forestry: An Attempt of Conceptualization and Categorization" Forests 14, no. 5: 905. https://doi.org/10.3390/f14050905