Forest-based value creation in Norway 79
implementation of ideas, system rules, knowledge generation and diffusion in
the organisation (Bjørkdahl & Börjesson, 2011). Firms have to decide the
main focus of their innovation activities: improvements of existing products
and optimisation of existing processes and value chains, which mostly require
more incremental innovations, or the development of totally new types of
products and processes, which require more radical innovations. Incremental
innovation characterises path extension and exhaustion, while radical innovation is necessary for new path creation and also, to some extent, for path
renewal. The prioritisation of incremental versus radical innovation varies
significantly between industries (Pavitt, 1984), with consequences for the
likelihood of different types of development. The incumbent forestry industry
has generally been found to prioritise incremental innovation (Hansen &
Coenen, 2017; Näyhä & Pesonen, 2014). The more radical innovations tend
to be rather costly in the first stages and therefore require more refinements
to improve the new products and processes, i.e. radical innovations should be
complemented by incremental innovations.
The actors interact through various types of networks, including supplier
networks, research and learning networks, or user- producer networks. Actors
include machinery and material suppliers, firms specialising in engineering,
transport, maintenance and R&D, but also business development organisations and incubators (Novotny & Nuur, 2013). The importance of different
types of actors varies according to technological characteristics, and particularly in degree of technological complexity (Hansen, Klitkou, Borup, Scordato & Wessberg, 2017). The focus on the actors is motivated by our interest
in processes of agency, which are essential for new path creation (Garud &
Karnøe, 2001a, 2001b; Simmie, 2012).
4.4 Analysis of empirical cases
We present a comparative analysis of the valorisation of residues and sidestreams that can be found and directions in which path development has
evolved across the three cases. The main empirical sources for the study are
interviews with several representatives of the main industry actors and their
collaborators in the three cases (Treklyngen, Skogn and Borregaard) and with
the national forest owner association, participation in workshops and site
visits. Media analysis, analysis of relevant policy documents and descriptive
statistics complement the interviews.
We have selected these three cases because they represent rather different
development directions, spanning over a broad range of valorisation pathways, and based in different counties of Norway: Østfold, Buskerud and
Trøndelag (see Figure 4.1).
implementation of ideas, system rules, knowledge generation and diffusion in
the organisation (Bjørkdahl & Börjesson, 2011). Firms have to decide the
main focus of their innovation activities: improvements of existing products
and optimisation of existing processes and value chains, which mostly require
more incremental innovations, or the development of totally new types of
products and processes, which require more radical innovations. Incremental
innovation characterises path extension and exhaustion, while radical innovation is necessary for new path creation and also, to some extent, for path
renewal. The prioritisation of incremental versus radical innovation varies
significantly between industries (Pavitt, 1984), with consequences for the
likelihood of different types of development. The incumbent forestry industry
has generally been found to prioritise incremental innovation (Hansen &
Coenen, 2017; Näyhä & Pesonen, 2014). The more radical innovations tend
to be rather costly in the first stages and therefore require more refinements
to improve the new products and processes, i.e. radical innovations should be
complemented by incremental innovations.
The actors interact through various types of networks, including supplier
networks, research and learning networks, or user- producer networks. Actors
include machinery and material suppliers, firms specialising in engineering,
transport, maintenance and R&D, but also business development organisations and incubators (Novotny & Nuur, 2013). The importance of different
types of actors varies according to technological characteristics, and particularly in degree of technological complexity (Hansen, Klitkou, Borup, Scordato & Wessberg, 2017). The focus on the actors is motivated by our interest
in processes of agency, which are essential for new path creation (Garud &
Karnøe, 2001a, 2001b; Simmie, 2012).
4.4 Analysis of empirical cases
We present a comparative analysis of the valorisation of residues and sidestreams that can be found and directions in which path development has
evolved across the three cases. The main empirical sources for the study are
interviews with several representatives of the main industry actors and their
collaborators in the three cases (Treklyngen, Skogn and Borregaard) and with
the national forest owner association, participation in workshops and site
visits. Media analysis, analysis of relevant policy documents and descriptive
statistics complement the interviews.
We have selected these three cases because they represent rather different
development directions, spanning over a broad range of valorisation pathways, and based in different counties of Norway: Østfold, Buskerud and
Trøndelag (see Figure 4.1).