The ecosystem approach in corporate environmental ...

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. (2009) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/csr.186

The Ecosystem Approach in Corporate Environmental Management – Expert Mental Models and Environmental Drivers in the Finnish Forest Industry Petteri Vihervaara1* and Matti Kamppinen2 1

Department of Biology, Biodiversity and Environmental Science, University of Turku, Turku, Finland 2 Department of Cultural Studies, University of Turku, Turku, Finland

ABSTRACT The ecosystem approach has been adopted as the framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity, and is recommended to be used widely in the integrated management of land, water and living resources, to promote conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way, also in corporations. The forest industry is a resource-intensive branch with various impacts on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Our aims in this study were to examine (i) how the ecosystem approach is implemented in the Finnish forest industry; and (ii) to outline the mental models of environmental experts of corporations, and their conceptualization of some key terms of ecosystem thinking. We interviewed 12 experts about their opinions on the main future challenges, the risks, the mistakes of the past, the possibilities and the successes confronting the forest industry. The results were analyzed using the DPSIR (Driving forces-Pressures-State-Impacts-Responses) framework model. Finally, we give several recommendations as to how the ecosystem approach can be integrated into corporate environmental management. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment. Received 30 January 2008; revised 19 September 2008; accepted 26 September 2008 Keywords: biodiversity; corporate responsibility; ecosystem service; environmental policy; sustainable development

Introduction

E

COLOGICAL THINKING, IN THE FORM OF VARIOUS PARALLEL PARADIGMS, SUCH AS THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH,

environmentalism, green movements, sustainable development etc., which include the idea of the limited resources of the Earth, has strongly influenced the modern Western business world. Three important episodes in the deepening consciousness of the future of our planet have been the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Nakicenovic and Swart, 2000; IPCC, 2001) and the Stern Review

Correspondence to: Petteri Vihervaara, Department of Biology, Biodiversity and Environmental Science, University of Turku, LT1 Turku, Finland Fl-20014. E-mail: sajuvi@utu.fi Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

P. Vihervaara and M. Kamppinen (Stern, 2007) about the impacts of climate change and its effects on business, as well as the statements of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005a, 2005b) about threats focused on the changes in ecosystems and ecosystem services. There are several examples of the increased interest of corporate shareholders and various stakeholders in corporate environmental impacts and corporate responsibility during the last decade (May et al., 2002; Bird et al., 2007), for example, the rising number of sustainable and ethical funds in Europe and North America (Santiso, 2005), and guidelines for corporate sustainability reporting (e.g., GRI – Global Reporting Initiative 2006). The impacts of climate change can be seen in two ways: on the one hand, climate change has dramatic restricting influences on the operation possibilities of the traditional industries and, on the other hand, it offers new possibilities for clean technologies and environmentally friendly marketing ideas. Adaptation strategies to climate change are being developed at both national and corporate levels. However, ecosystem changes resulting from climate change or directly from human pressure, such as expanding land use or deforestation, are serious and immediate threats to human well-being and biodiversity. Biodiversity is the basis of functioning ecosystems, and there are many examples showing that healthy ecosystem services can not be overexploited without consequences (Loreau et al., 2002; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005a). The aim of this study was to find out how the ecosystem approach is implemented in the forest industry, focusing on globally operating Finnish corporations, and to outline the mental models of experts acting with environmental issues. First, we studied some key terms in the experts’ models of the ecosystem approach: how biodiversity, environmental impacts, ecosystem services and sustainability were conceptualized, and how these related to future challenges, risks and possibilities of the forest industry. In addition, we asked the experts about successes and past mistakes made in the forest industry. Finally, we examined how the results cope with the DPSIR model. (Driving forces, Pressures, State, Impacts and Responses) (DPSIR) model, which is one of the commonly used causal frameworks for describing the interactions between society and the environment (EEA, 2007; Burkhard & Müller, 2008).

Theoretical Background Ecosystem Services The ecosystem services, i.e., benefits people derive from ecosystems, can be divided into provisioning services, including goods like food, fresh water, fiber, and fuel; regulating services, e.g., climate, flood and disease regulation and water purification; supporting services, e.g., soil formation, photosynthesis, primary production, pollination, water and nutrient cycling; and cultural services, e.g., recreational, aesthetic, social, educational, and spiritual benefits (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005a). Many of these services are decreasing or will decrease in the future because of the impacts of expanding human population. Ecosystem service research has given a new perspective through which to study the importance of biodiversity and ecosystems, and especially their importance to human well-being and societal decision-making (Costanza et al., 1997; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005a, 2005b).

Ecosystem Approach and Sustainable Forest Management The ecosystem approach is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way (CBD Secretariat, 2003). As described by the Conference of the Parties, the ecosystem approach is the primary framework for action under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 2004). CBD has developed 12 principles for the ecosystem approach, but they are not linked to any particular operational procedures and do not include clear targets or guidance for practical application (WWF-IUCN, 2004). This intangibility has also been one of the key criticisms of the ecosystem approach. There is a parallel concept to the ecosystem approach for forest management and conservation in the forest industry, called Sustainable Forest Management (SFM). SFM is followed through the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) and organizations such as FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) and ITTO (International Tropical Timber Organization) (WWF-IUCN, 2004). SFM has been developed and tested by Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment

Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt. (2009) DOI: 10.1002/csr

Ecosystem Approach in the Finnish Forest Industry forestry professionals, and its primary focus is on balancing conservation, production, and the use of forest goods and services, while the emphasis is on production. In contrast, the ecosystem approach focuses on balancing and integrating the conservation and use of biological diversity, and the emphasis is on conservation.

Mental Models Mental model (Senge, 1990; Hukkinen, 1999) refers to those tools of thinking that experts use, first, in conceptualizing the ecosystem approach, and second, in acting out the ecosystem approach. Mental models are culturally shared constructions of reality, and typically, there are various models available in any individual organization. Mental models have various interesting features that highlight our findings. First of all, mental models form hierarchies: particular models concerning particular corporate actions are subsumed under general models concerning the legitimacy and social acceptability of the industry. Secondly, mental models are conservative: novelties in industry and environmental thinking are related to mental models already in use. For example, if a general model postulates that the corporate environmental policies are sound, novelties in environmental thinking are understood as things already done but miscommunicated or misunderstood.

DPSIR Model The DPSIR model has been developed from the Stress-Response framework (Rapport and Friend, 1979) into the Pressure-State-Response (PSR) framework model by OECD (1991, 1993) and the United Nations (1996, 1999, 2001) and, finally, into the latest form of the DPSIR framework by the European Environmental Agency (EEA, 1995, 2007; Holten-Andersen et al., 1995). Nowadays, the DPSIR model is a widely accepted and commonly used framework for interdisciplinary indicator development, system and model conceptualization, and the structuring of integrated research programs and assessment (Burkhard and Müller, 2008; Svarstadt et al., 2008).

Finnish Forest Industry Why study implementation of the ecosystem approach in the forest industry? We chose this branch because of its economic relevance in Finland and the wide-scale impacts it has on nature, which are also rather well described and widely studied. In addition, a lot of development work has been done on every-day practices along the whole life cycle of the forest industry products, mainly due to increased awareness of environmental issues. The companies studied operate globally nowadays, while their technological development has been placed in Finland during last four decades. The environmental performance of the Finnish pulp and paper industry has greatly developed from the levels between the 1950s and the end of the 1980s to the twenty-first century compared to many other branches of industry (Niskala and Pretes, 1995; Davis-Walling and Batterman, 1997; Kaila et al., 2005; Labuschagne et al., 2005). This is also reflected by the increased number of EMAS registrations in the forest sector (Kuisma and Lovio, 2006). The Finnish forest industry was selected to study because it has been a forerunner of modern forest industry – and because of this, it is a good example for other branches of industry as well. The forest area in Finland is about 20 million ha of which 60% is privately owned; 26% state-owned; 9% owned by companies; and 5% owned by others (Finnish Forest Research Institute, 2007). There are 1.8 million ha of conservation areas and 1.5 million ha of wilderness areas in Finland, which together account for about 3.3 million ha (ca 10%) of the land area (33.8 million ha) (Ministry of the Environment, 2007). The share of the forest industry of the total exports of 961.4 billion in Finland was 20% in 2006, and the share of GDP was 3.8% (Statistics Finland, 2007; National Board of Customs, 2007). The four largest Finnish forest industry companies by turnover are Stora Enso (*14.6 billion), UPM-Kymmene (910 billion), Metsäliitto (99.3 billion) and Myllykoski (91.5 billion). The Finnish Forest Industries Federation is an interest group whose membership covers the entire pulp, paper and paperboard industries, and about 80% of the sawmilling, plywood and wood products industry in Finland. The total usage of wood raw material in Finland was 75 million m3 in 2006: 20 million m3 of wood was imported into Finland, mainly from Russia (15.4 million m3) and the Baltic states (3 million m3). The use of recovered paper Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment


P. Vihervaara and M. Kamppinen and paperboard as raw material was 755,000 t in Finland in 2006. (Finnish Forest Industries Federation, 2007; Finnish Forest Research Institute 2007.)

Material and Methods To examine the implementation of the ecosystem approach in the Finnish forest industry, we interviewed 12 experts from the two largest companies and the Finnish Forest Industries Federation. Ethnographic, in-depth research of mental models requires fewer informants than survey-based social science (Spradley, 1979; Werner and Schoepfle, 1987; Schensul et al., 1999). The ethnographic interviews are long, detailed and argumentative, as they aim to elicit complex conceptual structures. Our sample of 12 informants consists of experts that are treated as cultural specialists, or as key informants. Our assumption is that the optimal knowledge of the industry is with these informants. Also, the interviews contained future-oriented elements, and thereby the informants formed a future-oriented ‘think tank’ that is typical of futures research (Godet, 2001). Those selected were vice presidents, directors, managers and specialists involved in the environmental and corporate responsibility affairs, and they all have had a long career in the forest industry. Their level of education varied from graduate engineers and chemists to biologists and foresters. Ten 1–3-hour long semi-structured interviews were carried out February–June 2007. Most of the interviews were carried out on a one-to-one basis, but in two sessions, two people were interviewed at the same time. The set of questions was divided into three subtitles: background and environmental history, operational management, and future paths. The questions considered various phases of the forest industry, following the life cycle from raw material collection to processing and final products. Some of the core questions dealt with corporate responsibility and reporting, forest certification and environmental management systems, international agreements, best practices in harvesting and process techniques, communication, energy and climate change, organizational culture, developing markets, and future innovations. The content of issues discussed varied a bit depending on the background and the expertise of the people involved. The same questions concerning the ecosystem approach, biodiversity, ecosystem services and sustainability were asked of each person. Also, personal opinions and ranking of the challenges, risks, successes, possibilities and past mistakes were asked of everyone. The questions were planned to deal with overall issues of global perspective, but even though many Finnish practices were emphasized by interviewees. The interview data were analyzed with a focus on parallel terms, i.e., ecosystem approach, ecosystem service, biodiversity and sustainability. These four terms were selected because of their relevance to frame and illustrate ecosocial interactions between societies and ecosystems. We asked (i) how well these terms were known and understood; (ii) what was the interviewee’s personal opinion on the use and usefulness of the terms; and (iii) how they were implemented and how they affected the corporate decision-making. Finally, we constructed an interpretation table (see Results) based on the answers which were divided into three categories: well known/ partly known/ not known, and on the opinion of them into good and important/ neutral/ negative or useless. The main content of the terms was explained before asking personal opinions, if it was not known before. Explanations of the opinion, if given, were also listed. We examined the time of first emergence and the number of papers published on the four terms from the Web of Science (retrieved using field tag of ‘topic’ on 26 November 2007), and compared these to the attitudes and awareness of the interviewees. This was done to assess if awareness of the terms correlated with their temporal maturity. The number of papers on each term is, of course, not the total number of studies published on the topic, because synonyms like ‘sustainable development’ for ‘sustainability’, and ‘ecosystem goods’ for ‘ecosystem services’, were not checked. To estimate the future of the forest industry from the ecosystem approach viewpoint, we asked the interviewees to name at least three challenges, three risks and three successes they considered important. We also asked them to name what new possibilities they saw in the future development of the branch, and to name any evident mistakes made in the history of the Finnish forest industry. All respondents did not give all three answers to all groups and some gave more than three, but all the answers were then summarized. Finally, we put the key findings into the DPSIR framework model. The DPSIR model was used to outline the current state of forest industry together with past trends and future expectations. Drivers, pressures, impacts and Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment


Ecosystem Approach in the Finnish Forest Industry responses for the model were selectively picked from the interview results and literature. The DPSIR framework assumes the existence and proper functioning of mental models. Drivers and pressures, for example, can only have their impact if they are conceptualized by means of mental models. The driver ‘globalization’, for example, can generate reactive or proactive responses depending on the mental models by means of which they are understood and linked into action.

Results Concepts of Ecosystem Approach in Experts’ Mental Models The results demonstrate various levels of consciousness and criticism of the terms of the ecosystem approach. The term sustainability was fully adopted according to the experts’ views, and it formed an axiomatic baseline for the forest industry. All interviewees answered that the content of sustainability is well known and very important for the forest industry and all industries which are dependent on natural resources. The experts were also rather familiar with the term ‘biodiversity’. Half of the respondents answered that the concept of biodiversity was wellknown, and for the other half, it was partially known. Personal opinions were shared so that half considered biodiversity an important factor in the forest industry, the attitude of five people was neutral, and only one considered it not so important. Both the consciousness and opinions of the terms ‘ecosystem approach’ and ‘ecosystem services’ varied most. One-third was familiar with the concept of ecosystem services, while one-third had heard the term and knew something about it. One-third had not heard the term previously. Personal opinions on ecosystem services were very positive. Seven interviewees considered it good and important, three neutral, and only two thought it a negative or useless term. The ecosystem approach divided the interviewees most. Five were familiar with the term, two were partly familiar, and five did not know it at all. Also, the majority of the respondents, i.e., six interviewees, had a neutral opinion of the ecosystem approach. Two thought it was a good and important term, while four thought it was useless and unimportant. (Table 1.) The term ‘ecosystem approach’ was criticized especially by the experts who were most aware of it. Three out of five who were familiar with the topic conceived the ecosystem approach as useless or unimportant, and only one considered it good and important. The explanations for the criticism were e.g., ‘old stuff in a new packet, sustainable forest management includes all the same already’, and ‘too bureaucratic and difficult a term to handle and implement’. The Finnish legislation e.g., forest and conservation laws, as well as the Natura 2000 network, were mentioned as being so well developed that even corporate impacts on ecosystems are properly controlled. One respondent thought that studying impacts of the forest industry on soil, land, water and air is a better and more concrete definition than the vague ecosystem approach. Some positive opinions were also mentioned concerning the term. For instance, one respondent emphasized that the ecosystem approach might be useful in developing countries and in the plantation concept because it combines both social and environmental aspects. It was also seen as beneficial to compare economic valuations of different types of land use.

Term

Ecosystem approach Ecosystem service Biodiversity Sustainability

Consciousness of the terms

Personal opinion on the terms

Well known

Partly known

Not known

Good and important

Neutral

Negative or useless

5 4 6 12

2 4 6 0

5 4 0 0

2 7 6 12

6 3 5 0

4 2 1 0

Table 1. The consciousness of and the opinions on the terms of the ecosystem approach Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment


P. Vihervaara and M. Kamppinen There was only a little criticism of the ecosystem services, whereas the perplexity of the term was agonized over by many interviewees. The ecosystem services were seen as increasing their importance in the future, but the lack of market prices for the alternative and nontraditional benefits obtained from nature was seen as the main obstacle to their breakthrough in the forest industry, and widely, in all land-use planning. One respondent remarked that increasing the prices of forest goods, such as berries and mushrooms, may become significant and affect changes in everyman’s rights (i.e., free-access-to-nature). The term ‘biodiversity’ was not actually criticized but the complexity of the term was underlined. One person commented that there are huge difficulties even among many experts in handling the importance of biodiversity as an entity when discussing, e.g., the meaning of a particular species. Finally, we checked the emergence of these four terms in scientific publications. This revealed that the term ‘sustainability’ was mentioned for the first time in 1933, and totally 13,925 times until 2007. ‘Ecosystem approach’ was mentioned for the first time in 1957, and totally 354 times. ‘Biodiversity’ was mentioned for the first time in 1987, and totally 21,505 times. ‘Ecosystem service’ was mentioned for the first time in 1996, and totally 123 times. (Figure 1.)

Future Challenges The challenges which the forest industry might face and has already faced, aroused most suggestions, and the answers were distributed under nine subtitles. Communication (22% of the 58 answers to challenges); forests (17%);

Figure 1. The emergence of the terms in scientific publications. Sustainability (䉬) was mentioned for the first time in 1933, ecosystem approach (䉱) in 1957, biodiversity (䊏) in 1987 and ecosystem service (×) in 1996. 209 × 152 mm (600 × 600 DPI) Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment


Ecosystem Approach in the Finnish Forest Industry

Figure 2. Challenges facing the Finnish forest industry (n = 58). 209 × 132 mm (600 × 600 DPI)

climate (14%); and geographical changes (12%) were the most common factors affecting special challenges for the branch. Energy and social aspects (9% each), as well as land use and competition (7% each) accounted for almost all the rest of the challenges. Two issues were placed in the group of others (3%) (Figure 2.)

Communication There were various issues listed under the subtitle of communication, while relations to stakeholders and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) were mentioned three times, and the lack of knowledge of the present state of affairs in the forest industry by (ecological) researchers was mentioned twice. Other challenges were: reconciliation of different opinions, publicity, presenting correct and exact information, canards, politicized research, adequate information on the corporate responsibility to customers and stakeholders, responsible consumers, and communication itself.

Forests The acceptability and legality of fiber was the most common challenge under the subtitle, forests, and it was mentioned three times. The challenge of forest certification and concern about illegal logging, especially in the tropics, were related to the question of fiber. The sufficiency of resources was mentioned twice. Reconciliation of conservation and forestry, the question of old forests, and the future development of plantations were also mentioned.

Climate The climate, and indeed climate change, was mentioned eight times as a challenge. One interviewee emphasized the importance of early adaptation to climate change. The impacts of warming climate on logging were specifically mentioned by one respondent.

Geographical Challenges The geographical challenges were divided into three areas. Russia, especially its political climate and legality, was mentioned four times. Developing markets in China, Asia and South America were mentioned twice, and they were emphasized as an important task, especially from the point of view of responsibility. Upper Lapland in Finland was also mentioned twice, notably because of the conflicts that have emerged. Logistics, such as location of raw material sources and markets, was mentioned once. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment


P. Vihervaara and M. Kamppinen Energy Under the subtitle of ‘energy’ five issues were listed. Energy wood and the competition it might arouse with the traditional way of use were mentioned twice. One respondent was also worried about the unknown ecological impacts of energy-wood harvesting. Energy consumption and developing the energy efficiency of mechanical pulp grinding were also mentioned.

Social Aspects Social challenges were also mentioned five times. Working with different cultures was mentioned by two respondents. The other issues were social affairs in developing countries, occupational health care and security, and responsible reduction of employees.

Others The challenges faced with land use were the use of water resources and valuation of alternative land use methods, both of which were mentioned twice. The challenges of competition arose in four issues: how to keep up continuous development; how to increase the value of responsible production compared to competitors; global overcapacity of the forest industry (especially in pulp and paper); and the possible conflicts with energy wood production that was already mentioned in the energy section. Another two challenges unconnected to the other subtitles were the increase of recycling and the ‘failed’ conservation legislation of the EU according to one respondent.

Future Possibilities We also asked what kinds of opportunities the interviewees saw in the future. The biofuels and ecosystem services (e.g., byproducts of plantations, agroforestry and other forest goods) were each mentioned 3 times when the total number of answers to this question was 12. Other possibilities were linked to climate change, emission trade, increasing efficiency in raw material use and in water and energy consumption, benefits from large-scale production and new innovations.

Risks Communication and public attitudes (31 % of the 29 answers to risks) was the largest group of risks that may face the forest industry, when we asked the interviewees to list their opinions about possible risks. The second-largest risk group was forests (21%), and the third was spills and failures (17%). The risks concerning energy (14 %) and climate (7%) were also separated into their own groups from the answers. Three issues were placed in the risk group of others (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Risks facing the Finnish forest industry (n = 29). 208 × 130 mm (600 × 600 DPI) Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment


Ecosystem Approach in the Finnish Forest Industry Communication and Publicity Urbanization and people’s lack of interest in nature and the environment were seen as a risk both for the sustainable forest industry and for overall environmental affairs by two respondents. Image campaigns against companies (e.g., Harry Potter printing paper debate, attacks by Greenpeace) were mentioned twice. Other risks mentioned were information crises (e.g., new Metsä-Botnia pulp factory in Uruguay), increasing stakeholder criticism, controversial debates, for example, on determination of sustainability and old forests, communication with politicized researchers, and risk communication itself.

Forests Some risks were linked with forests. For instance, no risk assessment of forest resources has been done in Finland at all. The controversy over the forests of Upper Lapland was mentioned twice. Two respondents were especially concerned about the Tropics. They mentioned that the loss of tropical forests because of lack of control and cooperation will be a dramatic risk globally, with the scale varying from small operators carrying out illegal clear-cuts and harvesting tropical timber to the large-scale pressure caused, for example, by palm oil production. One respondent thought that apparently easy solutions may include unknown risks, like, for example, the increasing view that plantations are ecologically more sustainable than managed boreal forests.

Others Three respondents answered that small- and medium-scale spills are still relevant risks in the forest industry. Some technical risks that may occur accidentally in mills at the local level, and especially in pulp factories, because of pressure cookers and chemicals were also mentioned. The risks linked with energy issues had some ecological dimensions that were partly mentioned already in connection with forests. Two respondents mentioned the impacts of palm oil production and one mentioned energy-tree harvesting as serious risks driven by increasing energy consumption. Energy shortage was also mentioned as a risk for the industry. Climate change and adaptation were also mentioned as risks. Other particular risks were Russian business, water shortage and understanding of entities and causal relationships.

Past Mistakes We received seven answers to the question about mistakes made in the Finnish forest industry in the past. The spoiling of water bodies with effluents and spills from the 1950s to the 1970s was mentioned by three respondents, and huge clear-cuts were mentioned by two. Other mistakes mentioned were ditching of swamps, deep ploughing, artificial lakes, and the conflict-causing ‘nothing-is-enough’ attitude nowadays, on the part of both foresters and conservationists.

Success Stories in the Finnish Forest Industry The interviewees were also asked about successes. The largest group of successes was definitely forest management (41% of the 32 answers to successes). Communication and cooperation (28%) was the second group; and the third one was processes (19%). Four issues of successes were mentioned under the subtitle others (13%) (Figure 4).

Forest Management Most of the successes in forest management in Finland were linked to new guidelines to take account of biodiversity: for instance, increased amount of spare and rotten trees, as well as increased use of voluntary, naturemanagement exams, both of which were mentioned three times. The conservation of key biotopes and special nature values were mentioned twice. Other successful issues were the use of forest certification, sustainable forest management, new techniques used in harvesting, tracing systems (Code of Conduct, C-o-C) for the origin of the Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment


P. Vihervaara and M. Kamppinen

Figure 4. Successes of the Finnish forest industry (n = 32). 205 × 127 mm (600 × 600 DPI)

wood, and doubling the amount of aspen (Populus tremula), a key species for biodiversity, in Finnish forests since the 1950s.

Communication and Cooperation Cooperation projects (e.g., with WWF and the United Nations) and research programmes (e.g., METSO forest biodiversity project of southern Finland conducted by the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland) were mentioned by four respondents under the subtitle of communication and cooperation. The respect of stakeholders, the trust of clients and a good reputation in corporate responsibility were also mentioned. One respondent mentioned that stakeholder engagement had been successful when establishing new markets. One relevant success mentioned was the change in attitudes of mill managers and employees concerning the importance of environmental issues.

Industrial Processes Successes in industrial processes were said to be the increased efficiency in water and energy consumption and the decreased effluents and emissions, both of which were mentioned twice. Moreover, the use of best available techniques (BAT) and the discontinued use of chlorine in bleaching processes were mentioned as examples of good development.

Others Other successes that were mentioned were logistics and efficient transporting, increased amount of recycled paper in Finland, continuous development, and an open-minded attitude to learning from mistakes.

Experts’ Mental Models in the DPSIR Framework We packed the key results of the study into a common framework using the DPSIR model (Figure 5). The main drivers picked from the experts’ interviews can be divided into climate change, energy, globalization, competition, global policy-making, communication, resource availability and increased consciousness of responsibility on the part of customers. Mental models open up the black boxes between the constituents of DPSIR systems. Mental models carried by human actors and their institutions mediate between drivers, pressures, states, impacts and response. As our analysis suggests, the mental models of biodiversity, ecosystem services and future prospects create different future paths or responses in the context of tightening legislation. Forest industry and the surrounding society are both Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment


Ecosystem Approach in the Finnish Forest Industry

Figure 5. The Driver, Pressure, State, Impact and Response (DPSIR) model of the current state of the forest industry based on expert mental models. The responses show both implemented and possible future responses to the progress. 42 × 31 mm (600 × 600 DPI)

dynamic DPSIR systems interacting with each other and with their respective ecosystems. Mental models inform the actors in both systems what to take into account, what to aim for, and how to choose the optimal means (Senge, 1990).

Discussion Categorizing various challenges, possibilities, risks, past mistakes and successes show the diversity of the experts’ mental models on environmental and corporate responsibility issues. However, some aspects were emphasized, which are now discussed in more detail. The interviews comprehensively covered the whole life cycle of the forest industry; we also considered relevant national and international laws and agreements. Several concrete environmental developments have come to fruition in the forest industry; emissions into the air and effluents into waters in particular have greatly decreased due to new filters and wastewater treatment methods. The amounts of noxious compounds have decreased, for instance, because of new bleaching methods. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment


P. Vihervaara and M. Kamppinen One of the main drivers for this process has been the pressure of stakeholders, especially NGOs, as was emphasized by several experts, and thus the proactive environmental strategy has also been seen as a competitive advantage (Shrivastava, 1995). Traditionally these trends have been presented in the corporate environmental and sustainability reports. However, the data published in the corporate reports has been also strongly criticized, and governmental or international pollutant release and transfer registers are seen of much greater value (Sullivan and Gouldson, 2007). Other reasons for the use of better techniques (and nowadays the best available, i.e., BAT) have been the new environmental legislation, leading to, for instance, obligatory monitoring of surface waters, environmental impact assessment, more efficient processes in terms of raw material use and energy consumption, and also increased knowledge and awareness of corporate environmental impacts (European Commission, 2001; Nilsson et al., 2007). When considering the whole branch of the forest industry, the ecological impacts on forests are fundamental. Despite the wide field of value-based discussions on the use of Finnish forest resources and also the criticism (Jalonen et al., 2006; Saastamoinen et al., 2006; Sutinen, 2006; Wolf and Primmer, 2006), most experts thought that the guidelines for sustainable forest management have increased the number of ecologically relevant features in forests and conserved key habitats. Positive opinions have been expressed by conservationists, forest owners and forest managers on the nature value trade developed in the METSO (Forest Biodiversity Program for Southern Finland) project (Primmer, 2007). Noteworthily, communication was seen as the biggest risk, the biggest challenge, and also a high success. Also social issues were noted as one of the biggest group of challenges and risks. One of the main findings of this study is that there seem to be various challenges in communications between corporations and stakeholders, even though the experts’ mental models show mostly adequate consideration of environmental issues. Hukkinen (1999) found in his studies on institutions of environmental management that many environmental decision-makers and experts hold professional convictions about the principles of long-term environmental sustainability, which are sometimes in sharp contrast with the short-term economic principles. Decision-makers rationalized their decisions with cognitively dissonant mental models in a turbulent societal or business environment, between their own long-term convictions and the short-term pressure from the formal institutions. However, the decisions they made often yield to the short-term economic principles imposed by the formal institutions. This might be one explanation for part of the difficulties the experts face when they communicate with stakeholders, because the mental models of stakeholders are also conservative, and reaction to changes in corporate behavior is a slow process. Slinn et al. (2007) found that the environmental impact assessment (EIA) worked well in land-use planning, but that it failed to facilitate the planning of effective environmental management in practise. One explanation for that might be that the mental models are conservative and thus it takes time before EIA systems are set up to management practices. The European Environmental Agency (EEA) recently launched a proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor the progress of biodiversity and to halt the loss of it by 2010 – the so-called SEBI 2010 process: Streamlining European 2010 Biodiversity Indicators (EEA, 2007). Altogether 26 indicators have been selected, based on logical frameworks like DPSIR and comparable scientific observations of statistical measures. At least four of them are relevant for estimating the environmental impacts of the forest industry: (i) fragmentation of natural and seminatural areas; (ii) freshwater quality; (iii) forest: growing stock, increment and fellings; and (iv) forest: dead wood. Freshwater quality is indicated by ammonium (NH4), biological oxygen demand (BOD), nitrate (N) and phosphorous (P) concentrations in water; if they are high, quality goes down, threatening aquatic biodiversity and reducing the integrity of the ecosystem and its capacity to deliver ecosystem services. This indicator is relevant when considering processes and effluents of the forest industry. Three other indicators consider terrestrial ecosystems, and are thus more relevant for assessing impacts of raw material acquisition and forestry; in particular, the fragmentation of natural and semi-natural areas and the amount of dead wood have high biodiversity relevance (EEA, 2007). Comparison of ecological indicators could be more tightly integrated into corporate environmental management strategies. Our data show that the experts interviewed noted forest management as the main group of successes in the Finnish forest industry, but the acceptability and legality of the fiber was the main challenge under the forest issues. The amount of rotten wood was also noted as a key feature for biodiversity, and attention has been paid to this in SFM. There emerged a strong opinion among the interviewees that SFM is a much better and more concrete set of management rules than the ecosystem approach. However, most of the experts agreed that there Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment


Ecosystem Approach in the Finnish Forest Industry are many possibilities to use the ecosystem approach in strategic planning, especially when operating in developing countries. The emergence data of the terms of ecosystem approach provide rather interesting cues for the acceptance of new terms in everyday use. Sustainability was the oldest term, from the 1930s, and there were thousands of publications in which it was the topic. The concept of sustainable development became common knowledge after the report of the Brundtland Commission (WCED, 1987). It was well known by experts and no one thought it a useless or negative term. Ecosystem approach was the second oldest, from the 1950s, but there were only a few hundred publications on it. The early publications were quite variable, and only one to three papers were published per year until 1993, when it began to be actively discussed because of the CBD, and as a framework for the CBD in 1995 (COP, 1995). The most variation was found in the attitudes and knowledge of the experts about the ecosystem approach. The term biodiversity emerged in scientific discussion at the end of the 1980s, but it has expanded rapidly to become one of the mainstreams of biological research with tens of thousands of publications connected to it. It was also rather well known by the experts, and there were no negative or useless opinions of it except for one that considered its relevance in the current discussion about the environmental impacts of forest industry. The concept of ecosystem services was the latest of the terms, emerging for the first time in 1996, and it led to only one to three publications per year until 2001. However, it seems that in recent scientific discussion the concept has been accepted, largely because of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) in which it was widely used. The ecosystem services divided the consciousness of the interviewees. One-third had not heard of it, but the majority of the experts thought it a good and important topic with many possibilities in the future. Climate change is definitely one of the main factors along with the energy question, including new possibilities of biofuels that will affect the forest industry in the future. These two drivers are obviously linked to each other. Globalization has multiple impacts on the forest industry via competition, cultural differences, varying local legislations and the accessibility of raw materials, employers and markets. One big issue driven by competition and the international political climate is the establishment of plantations in new locations in tropical, subtropical and temperate zones, because this may lead to challenges in land use and influence social circumstances, biodiversity and ecosystems. The future development of Russia is also a very important factor in the global forest industry; on the one hand, because of the huge forest resources of Siberia, but on the other hand, because of the uncertain political atmosphere that makes it very risky for investment. Communication and the increased interest of customers and stakeholders in corporate responsibility cover all the operations of the companies in ecological, social and economic issues. Thus, it is, at the same time, the face and the nerve centre of the company, which should know what is going on in every field of responsibility, because it will always be pulled into the middle of turbulence. Correct and exact information, together with transparent communication, will be essential for corporate responsibility and reputation.

Conclusions Referring to the two questions asked in the introduction, the following conclusions can be drawn. Our study reveals that the mental models of CSR and environmental experts include some ambivalence compared to stakeholder engagement. Open dialogue with stakeholders is one of the most essential needs for the forest industry in the future. The implementation of the ecosystem approach to everyday practices in corporate environmental management is already true at some level, but further focusing is needed on application of mental models, and on several pressures that affect to ecosystems and the current state of the forest industry. Pressures like establishment of plantations and increments in energy-wood harvesting might have strong negative, but so far unknown impacts on ecosystem services, which should not be neglected. The main drivers that influence the current state and the future of the forest industry are: (i) climate change, which is also tightly connected to energy questions; (ii) globalization, which has stimulated competition, influenced to resource availability and led to over-capacity in pulp and paper; (iii) international policies, both in trade and environmental affairs; (iv) communication; and finally, (v) mental shift of customers towards deeper sustainability and awareness of climate change, and after that to other environmental issues like biodiversity. The latter Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment


P. Vihervaara and M. Kamppinen particularly raises the level of responsibility, which might need quick strategic responses from companies if they want to belong to the upper echelon of proactive operators. Current consciousness of the concept of the ecosystem approach, such as ecosystem services, supports the postulatation that the development and shift of mental models are slow processes. Thus, we can assume that before a particular environmental problem reaches the international political agenda, a huge amount of empirical research work will already have been done, and the drivers for the problem will have been visible for a long time, as we have seen, for instance, in the discussion about climate change. Short-term economical goals have to be juxtaposed and reconciled with long-term ecological milestones in corporate environmental strategy planning. Some concrete means to fit the ecosystem approach into corporate decision-making are, for example, cooperation with NGOs or international research institutes, which benefit both parties, and specified research projects of certain topics, which can be up-scaled. Also further development of certificates, tracing systems for wood origin, and technologies can lead to win-win-win situations, where nature, company and customer can evolve into a more sustainable, symbiotic stage in the future.

Acknowledgements We wish to acknowledge the Academy of Finland for financial support to the CORECO project. We also want to thank all the experts who offered their time for the interviews and helped to find some background material. Finally, we thank two anonymous referees and Dr Benjamin Burkhard for valuable comments on the manuscript.

References Bird R, Hall AD, Momenté F, Reggiani F. 2007. What corporate social responsibility activities are valued by the market? Journal of Business Ethics 76: 189–206. Burkhard B, Müller F. 2008. Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response. In Ecological Indicators. Vol 2 of Encyclopedia of Ecology, 5 vols, Jørgensen SE, Fath BD (eds). Elsevier: Oxford, UK; 967–970. CBD Secretariat. 2003. Handbook of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 2nd edn (Updated to include the outcome of the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties). UN/UNEP/CBD: Montréal pp 937 + CD-Rom. CBD Secretariat. 2004. The Ecosystem Approach, CBD Guidelines. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Montreal. http://www. biodiv.org/doc/meetings/suse/rwsuafr-01/other/rwsuafr-01-oth-ea-text-en.pdf [12 January 2007]. COP II. 1995. Conference of the Parties, Convention on Biological Diversity. http://www.biodiv.org/convention/cops.shtml [10 December 2006]. Costanza R, dÁrge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Naeem S, Limburg K, Paruelo J, OŃeil RV, Raskin R, Sutton P, van den Belt M. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260. Davis-Walling P, Batterman SA. 1997. Environmental reporting by the Fortune 50 firms. Environmental Management 21: 865–875. EEA. 1995. Europe’s Environment: the Dobris Assessment. European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark. EEA. 2007. Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010: proposal for a first set of indicators to monitor progress in Europe. EEA Technical report 11. European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark. European Commission. 2001. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Pulp and Paper Industry. Finnish Forest Industries Federation. 2007. Finnish Forest Industries Yearbook 2007. FFIF: Helsinki. Finnish Forest Research Institute. 2007. Finnish Statistical Yearbook of Forestry 2006. FFIF: Helsinki. Godet M. 2001. Creating futures – scenario planning as strategic management tool. Economica: London. GRI (Global Reporting Initiative). 2006. Sustainability reporting framework G3. http://www.globalreporting.org/ReportingFramework/ G3Online/ [12 December 2007]. Holten-Andersen J, Paalby H, Christensen N, Wier M, Andersen FM. 1995. Recommendations on strategies for integrated assessment of broad environmental problems. European Environment Agency (EEA) and National Environmental Research Institute (NERI): Copenhagen, Denmark. Hukkinen J. 1999. Institutions in environmental management: constructing mental models and sustainability. Routledge, EUI Environmental Policy Series: London, UK. IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Watson RT and the Core Writing Team (eds). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge and New York. Jalonen R, Hanski I, Kuuluvainen T, Nikinmaa E, Pelkonen P, Puttonen P, Raitio K, Tahvonen O (eds). 2006. Uusi metsäkirja. Gaudeamus Kirja Oy and Yliopistokustannus University Press Finland Ltd: Helsinki. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment


Ecosystem Approach in the Finnish Forest Industry Kaila S, Strandström M, Heinonen P, Lehesvirta T, Raivio S, Rautolahti T, Ågren P. 2005. Kestävän kehityksen käsite metsän hoidossa ja käytössä. Metsätieteen aikakausikirja 3: 359–369. Kuisma M, Lovio M. 2006. EMAS- ja GRI-raportointi osana yhteiskuntavastuullisuutta – jatkuvan parantamisen toteaminen yritysten raportoinnin avulla. Working Papers W-408, Helsinki School of Economics. Labuschagne C, Brent AC, van Erck RPG. 2005. Assessing the sustainability performances of industries. Journal of Cleaner Production 13: 373–385. Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P. 2002. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning – Synthesis and perspectives. Oxford University Press: Oxford and New York. May PH, Dabbs AW, Fernándes-Dávila P, Da Vinha V, Zaidenweber N. 2002. A corporate approach to social monitoring and assessment for development in a fragile environment. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 76: 125–134. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005a. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute: Washington, DC. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005b. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Opportunities and Challenges for Business and Industry. World Resources Institute: Washington, DC. Ministry of the Environment. 2007. http://www.ymparisto.fi [12 December 2007]. Nakicenovic N, Swart R (eds). 2000. IPCC special report on emissions scenarios (SRES). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. National Board of Customs: Statistics. 2007. http://www.tulli.fi [12 December 2007]. Nilsson P, Puurunen K, Vasara P, Jouttijärvi T. 2007. Continuum – Rethinking BAT emission of the pulp and paper industry in the European Union. The Finnish Environment FE12/2007 Continuum – Rethinking BAT Emissions of the Pulp and Paper Industry in the European Union.pdf Niskala M, Pretes M. 1995. Environmental reporting in Finland: a note on the use of annual reports. Accounting, Organisations and Society 20: 457–466. OECD. 1991. Environmental Indicators. A preliminary set. OECD: Paris, France. OECD. 1993. OECD core set of indicators for environmental performance reviews. OECD Environmental Directorate Monographs 83. Primmer E. 2007. METSOn vaikutukset paikallistasolla – yhteistoiminta monimuotoisuuden turvaamisessa [Impacts of the METSO Programme at the local level: cooperation in biodiversity conservation, abstract]. METSO-seminaari, tiedekeskus Heureka, Vantaa. [7 March 2007] Rapport D, Friend A. 1979. Towards a comprehensive framework for environmental statistics: a stress-response approach. Statistics Canada catalogue 11–510. Minister of Supply and Services Canada: Ottawa. Saastamoinen O, Donner-Amnell J, Rantala T (eds). 2006. Viewpoints on the social sustainability of forest sector and its future. Research Notes 168. University of Joensuu: Faculty of forests. Santiso J. 2005. Markets in virtue: the promise of ethical funds and micro-credit. International Social Science Journal 57: 495–508. Schensul SL, Schensul JJ, LeCompte MD. 1999. Essential ethnographic methods. Altamira Press: Walnut Creek, CA. Senge P. 1990. The fifth discipline. The art & practice of the learning organization. Random House: London, UK. Shrivastava P. 1995. Environmental technologies and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal 16: 183–200. Slinn P, Handley J, Jay SA. 2007. Connecting EIA to environmental management systems: lessons from industrial estate developments in England. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 14: 88–102. Spradley J. 1979. Ethnographic interview. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich: Orlando, FL. Statistics Finland. 2007. http://www.stat.fi [12 December 2007]. Stern N. 2007. The Stern Review: The economics of climate change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. Sullivan R, Gouldson A. 2007. Pollutant release and transfer registers: examining the value of government-led reporting on corporate environmental performance. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 14: 263–273. Svarstad H, Petersen LK, Rothman D, Siepel H, Wätzold F. 2008. Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR. Land Use Policy 25:116–125. United Nations. 1996. Indicators of sustainable development. Division for Sustainable Development: New York. United Nations. 1999. Work programme on indicators of sustainable development of the Comission on Sustainable Development. Division for Sustainable Development, Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York. United Nations. 2001. Indicators of sustainable development: framework and methodologies. Background paper No. 3. Commission on Sustainable Development, Division for Sustainable Development, Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York. WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Werner O, Schoepfle GM. 1987. Systematic fieldwork, Vol. 1. Sage Publications: Newbury Park. Wolf SA, Primmer E. 2006. Between incentives and action: A pilot study of biodiversity conservation competencies for multifunctional forest management in Finland. Society and Natural Resources 19: 845–861. WWF International and IUCN the World Conservation Union. 2004. Changing realities. Ecosystem Approach and Sustainable Forest Management. Arborvitae Special 12 pp.

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
